JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurance company has raised a short point. It is urged that the liability of the appellant was limited to Rs. 50,000 according to the contract of insurance but the Tribunal has erred in fixing its liability to the extent of Rs. 65,000.
2. There is also a cross-objection filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as to the respective aspects raised by them and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that so far as the submission of the appellant is concerned, there is merit in the same. We have seen the policy which contains a specific column regarding the limits of liability. It has two columns, first of which is in the following terms :
" Limit of the amount of the company's liability under Section II-1(i) in respect of any one accident."
3. As agafnst this column, the following words are mentioned :
" Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. "
4. In the same column, the second limit is in the following language :
" Limit of the amount of company's liability under Section II-1(ii) in respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of one event."
5. Against this column, the figure "50,000" is mentioned. Section II-1(i) in the policy deals with death or bodily injury and Sub-clause (ii) refers to damage to property. Therefore, the total liability undertaken by the insurance company was to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or to the extent of liability as may be fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident in this case had taken place on November 11, 1976, and at the relevant time the extent of liability under the law was only Rs. 50,000. Thus, both under sub Section (i) and (ii), the liability of the insurer was limited to only Rs. 50,000.
6. It appears that the Tribunal has been misled by the figure " 65,000 " which is mentioned in another column. There the particulars of the vehicle insured are mentioned. Under the head " insured's estimate of value including accessories", the figure " 65,000 " has been mentioned. Apparently Rs. 65,000 was only the estimate of the value of the vehicle insured given by the policy-holder which has nothing to do with the liability of the insurance company. As mentioned earlier, the liability of the appellant was no more than Rs. 50,000 and, therefore, the appellant is right in its submission that the Tribunal has erred in fixing its liability at Rs. 65,000.
7. So far as the question raised in the cross-objection is concerned, it is urged that the Tribunal has erred in taking the life expectancy as 55 to 60 years only. The Tribunal's finding is that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the accident and that he had been educated only up to B.A. Part I in which class he had failed. He had some agricultural land which was being jointly cultivated by him and his uncle and cousins. Although the deceased was not in Government service, it is assumed that apart from his cultivation he would have earned about Rs. 300 or so from a job. If he had taken up a job then he would have retired at the age of 55 years. Taking the average age to be between 55 and 60 years, the Tribunal has held that he would have earned at the rate of Rs. 300 per month for next 25 years. Multiplying his total income, the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 90,000 as the total income that he would have earned during this period. It is that amount which has been awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that apart from agriculture, he was also carrying on business of preparing and selling khowa. We have been taken through the evidence by learned counsel for the parties and having considered the same, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to disagree with the finding of the Tribunal. Nothing material has been shown which may lead us to upset the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not carrying on khowa business or that he was carrying on agricultural operations independently.
8. It was next urged that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the likely increase in earnings. This argument has been countered by the appellant on the ground that no deduction has been made by the Tribunal on account of lump sum nature of payment and also it has not taken into consideration the increasing liability of the deceased in case his family size increased in future.
9. Having considered both these aspects, we are of the view that any increase in his daily or monthly income would have been more than offset by increasing liabilities with his children growing up and family getting enlarged in due course of time. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow the cross-objection and to enhance the compensation awarded. The cross objection has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. As regards the appeal, it is partly allowed to the extent that instead of the liability of the insurance company being Rs. 65,000, it will now be limited to Rs. 50,000 only, the claimants-respondents will be free to realise the remaining amount from other respondents. With these observations, both the appeals and the cross-objection are disposed of.