Judgment:
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos.219 of 1991 and 391 of 1991 as the common question of law and facts is involved therein.
2. F.A.O. No. 219 of 1991 has been preferred by the National Insurance Company, Ludhiana, being aggrieved by award dated 30.11.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- in favour of the claimants, claiming that their liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the other hand, F.A.O. No. 391 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of aforestated compensation.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 25.12.1988, Baldev Singh Khokhar son of Gurdial Singh (adopted son of Babu Singh) along with Baljit Singh left Ludhiana for Sidhwan Khurd on his scooter No. PAC-8572. He was driving the scooter on the left side of the road with Baljit Singh riding the pillion. At about 10 PM, when they reached opposite to Petrol Pump, Mullanpur Dakha, an army disposal mini truck (Nissan Make) bearing registration No. PUR-5345 driven by Pritpal Singh came from the opposite direction and hit against the scooter due to which the scooterists fell down. Baldev Singh Khokhar sustained serious injuries. The scooter also got badly damaged. He was rushed to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana where he succumbed to his injuries on the next day. On a report lodged by Baljeet Singh with the police, a criminal case was registered against Pritpal Singh. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by his widow, Amarjit Kaur, a minor son, two minor daughters and parents claiming compensation on account of his death.
4. Upon notice of the claim petition, separate written statements were filed by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending truck) in their joint written statement denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Pritpal Singh. It was pleaded that when respondent No. 1 was going from Mullanpur to his village on his truck and had reached near the petrol pump, another truck came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and struck against the front right side of his truck as a result of which the 'U' bolts and the tie-rod of his truck got broken due to which he lost control over the truck and the same went towards right side of the road. It was pleaded that deceased Baldev Singh was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and it was he who hit his scooter against the truck driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3, namely, the National Insurance Company, in its written statement took up the plea that the driyer of the offending truck was not having a valid driving licence. It further pleaded that though the truck was insured with it yet its liability was limited. Respondent No. 4, Gurdial Singh, in his written statement while admitting the claim petition, pleaded that deceased Baldev Singh was adopted by Babu Singh and Gurnam Kaur (claimant No. 5 and 6 in the claim petition) and was brought up and educated by them. He further pleaded that he has no objection if the compensation claimed was given to the claimants.
5. Upon pleadings of the parties, issues were struck. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and against respondents No. 1 and 3 jointly and severally, to be paid within two months. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each was ordered to be paid to claimants No. 5 and 6 (Babu Singh and Gurnam Kaur); a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each to the minor daughters Adeyjit Kaur and Nirdeijit Kaur (claimant No. 3 and 4); Rs. 1,00,000/- to the minor son Amardev Singh (claimant No. 2) and the remaining amount of Rs. 84,000/- to the widow Amarjit Kaur (claimant No. 1). The amount awarded to the three minor claimants was ordered to be invested in some long term policy in a scheduled bank, to be paid to them on attaining majority. On failure to deposit the compensation amount within the afore-stated two months, the claimants were held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 30.5.1989 till realization.
6. Aggrieved by the afore-stated award, respondent No. 3, namely, National Insurance Company has preferred F.A.O. No 219 of 1991 while F.A.O. No. 391 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.
8 Deceased Baldev Singh was an Assistant Scientist in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. PW-1 Mehar Singh, Head of the Department of Animal Science, P.A.U., ludhiana, has proved the monthly emoluments of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,760/-. He also deposed that in due course of time, he would have been promoted as Scientist and then Sr. Scientist with increased grades. On the strength of the said evidence, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation on the ground of future prospects. It is important to note that at the time of accident, there is no evidence as to whether there was any such move of his (deceased's) promotion in the near future. Future always remains uncertain. Even otherwise, rights and liabilities arising on the date of accident would be relevant for the purpose of determining the question of compensation. Thus, the argument has been confined that the Tribunal had wrongly deducted Rs. 376/- towards contribution of G.P.F. while computing the dependency. The Tribunal has certainly fallen into error. The contribution towards G.P.F. is not an expense but a saving accruing interest and can be withdrawn according to the need. Therefore, Rs. 376/- was not to be subjected to deduction. Accordingly, if out of Rs. 3,260/-, a sum of Rs. 1,060/-is deducted on account of personal expenses and up-keep, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,200/-. Multiplier of 16 as applied by the Tribunal needs no interference in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 650 (S.C.). In this way, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 4,22,000/- (2200 x 12 x 16), i.e. Rs. 38,400/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants (appellants in F.A.O. No. 391 of 1991) in equal share. The amount be paid in cash even to claimants-appellants No. 2 to 4 if they have attained majority.
9. Now the question left is regarding liability to pay compensation by the Insurance Company. It has been contended by the counsel for insurance company that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. There is force in this contention. The learned Tribunal has fallen into error in holding that the liability of the insurance company is not limited on the ground that the insurance policy does not show anything in this aspect. This issue is no more res-integra in view of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Limited v. CM. Jay a and Ors. : [2002]1SCR298 , wherein it has been held that even if a vehicle is the subject matter of comprehensive insurance and a higher premium is paid on that score, the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk does not become unlimited or higher beyond the statutory liability fixed. A separate premium has to be paid in respect of additional amount of liability undertaken by the insurer in that regard. In the instant case, the insurance policy is Exhibit R-3. It shows that no extra premium had been paid in respect of additional amount of liability. Thus, the liability of the insurance co mpany is limited only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the remaining amount is ordered to be paid by the other respondents, namely, respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
10. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 percent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent in,view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Rajapriya's case (supra). Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in this shall carry interest at the flat rate of 9 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment.
11. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. Both the appeals, namely, F.A.O. Nos.219 and 391 of 1991, stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.