Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. Through this appeal, award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Suhagpur, in M.C.C. No. 13 of 1998 dated 27.11.1999 has been challenged.
2. Shortly stated, Shankarlal (45) was a village cobbler. On 13.6.1991 he was going to Gadarwara by minibus No. MKB 9211 owned by Harilal alias Heeralal and driven by Subhash (dead). The bus fell into river Nandaner, through which it was passing. This happened because it was being driven rashly and negligently. Deceased died in this accident apart from many others. His family was dependent on him, therefore, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 is claimed.
3. Owner of vehicle has denied the allegation. He alleges that the claim is barred by limitation. Insurance company has also denied the allegation. Vehicle was being driven in .violation of terms of insurance policy, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation.
4. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal holds that the accident took place as alleged and deceased died in this accident. The Claims Tribunal has competence to decide the claim and no violation of terms of insurance policy is found. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 89,400 is awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The liability of insurance company has been restricted to Rs. 50,000.
5. Record perused. Counsel for parties heard. From the evidence, it is absolutely clear that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, otherwise it would not have taken place. Conclusion of the Tribunal is sustainable on evidence in the case, therefore, it is confirmed.
6. Next question is whether the claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. The counsel for the parties have disagreed on this point. Mr. Narendra Sharma submits that looking to the income of the deceased and his age, proper compensation has not been determined and paid, therefore, enhancement of award is necessary and liability to pay compensation is of the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured.
7. M/s. Ajay Raizada, Anoop Nair and Naveen Dubey, learned counsel appearing for owner and insurance company respectively, submit that the claimants have been awarded proper compensation by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, no interference is called for. Mr. Raizada submits that full compensation is payable by the insurance company but, Mr. Dubey submits that the liability of insurance company is limited to Rs. 50,000.
8. Giving consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we find that the deceased was a village cobbler. He had four members in the family. Evidence suggests that he used to hold hat (weekly bazar) four/five times a month, sell pairs of shoes and earn income of Rs. 3,000 per month. But, Mr. Naveen Dubey submits that the deceased was being assisted by his son Sitaram, AW 1, in the manufacture of shoes and in sale thereof. This may be so. But Sitaram was 22 years old at the time of accident, therefore, he might not be assisting the deceased to the extent of 50 per cent. Therefore, it would be just and proper to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month out of which; the share of Sitaram should be Rs. 1,000. Consequently, annual income comes to Rs. 24,000, taking 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, the dependency would come to Rs. 16,000 per annum. At the time of accident, he was 45 years old and relevant multiplier should be 15. Thus, compensation works out to Rs. 2,40,000 plus Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 for consortium, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 2,56,500 (rupees two lakh fifty-six thousand five hundred only).
9. Next question for determination is whether the insurance company has to pay whole compensation or to the extent of Rs. 50,000, as contended. On the basis of Section 95(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it could be contended that the liability of insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000 in case of passenger vehicle. This has been held by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai, 1995 ACJ 470 (SC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CM. Jaya, 2002 ACJ 271 (SC). However, section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force from 1.7.1989 prior to taking place of accident in this case, deletes the provision of limited liability of insurance company with respect to public service vehicle. Under the new Act, the limited liability is confined to damage to any property of a third party, to the extent of Rs. 6,000. Therefore, it is held that the liability of insurance company is unlimited.
10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, award is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,56,500 payable by insurance company with which the vehicle was insured within two months. Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent (nine per cent) per annum from the date of application till payment.