Guman Mal Lodha, J.:— These three appeals are related to award dated 19th April, 1984 passed by Shri V.P Agrawal, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MACT case No. 5 of 1978.

2. On 24th June, 1974 late Rao Dheer Singh was going from Manoharpura to Shahpura in his car No, RJL 8207. The fuel abruptly exhausted and the car was stopped allegedly on the left side of the road and the driver was asked to go to Shahpura to bring the petrol. Rao Dheer Singh remained sitting in the Car little knowing that instead of petrol the cruel fate is going to bring back to him by accident.

3. At about 1.00 A.M truck RJR 6607 driven by Tara Chand allegedly rashly and negligently dashed against the standing car resulting in instanteneous death of Rao Dheer Singh. On the above bedrock of facts a claim petition was filed by Gunwat Kumari widow of Rao Dheer Singh, two sons Rao Rajendra Singh and Rao Shri Surendra Singh. Maji Hawa Kanwar mother of the deceased Bhanwarini Anurekha and Smt. Chandra Kala daughters of deceased Dheer Singh. The claim was of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The non-petitioner owner of RJR 6607 and insurance company and the driver contested the claim. The driver of RJR 6607 came with the plea that the truck No. DHG 1625 came from behind his truck and dashed against his truck leading to the accident. Truck driver and owner of this were also insured. Eleven issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Ultimately the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence of the drivers of the two trucks mentioned above, 90 percent being of the first truck and 10 per cent of the second truck, the first truck being RJR 6607 and the second truck being DHG 1625. The plea of the first truck that the car was being parked at a wrong place without parking light was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the car iwas being parked in kachha and the truck went in kachha and knocked the car from behind. The second truck also came in contact from behind and therefore its negligence was computed to 10 percent only

4. The Tribunal on the evidence decided that the deceased Rao Dheer Singh used to earn sufficiently good amount and out of his earning per month Rs. 2,000/- was the dependency of the family members and they have been deprived of this amount permanently on account of death of Rao Dheer Singh. Dheer Singh at the time of his death was 38 years of age. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 years. The Tribunal did not allow any compensation for the suffering in the form of consortium or loss of love and affection either to the widow or to sons daughter's, mother etc. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the negligence was contributory and therefore apportinned the amount. The Tribunal also held liable the two insurance company, insurer of both the trucks and limited their liability upto Rs. 50,000/- each. Tribunal absolved the car driver and the insurance company of the car from any liability whatsoever for holding that it was being parked in kuccha and there was no fault, negligence or mistake of the driver of the car owner in the accident. Against the above whereas Gunwant Kumari and others have filed two appeals 230 and 198 of 1985 for increase of the compensation and also for holding insurance companies of both the truck liable for the whole, amount, Sardar Sadhu Singh owner of the truck RJR 6607 has filed the appeal No. 23.1 of 1985 for firstly absolving itself from any liability on the ground that there was no negligence or rashness of his driver, secondly holding that the liability of the other car RJL 8207 was the real responsibility of rashness or negligence of its driver and further that the car was also parked in between the road and therefore there was contributory negligence for which the insurance company of the car should also be held liable in any case. It would thus be seen that there is a multidimensional debate of various facets in the present case.

5. I would first take up the appeals of Shtimati Gunwant Kumari and Hawa Kanwar claimants. In my opinion before I deal with the question of compensation I must mention that the evidence produced for showing rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck RLR 6607 has been rightly believed by the Tribunal and I am in agreement with it. Consequently it would be avoidable repetition of the entire evidence and its discussion. All that can be said is that the appreciation of the evidence on this point is just and proper, and Mr. Bhargava learned counsel for Sardar Sadhu Singh has not been able to show any serious infirmity in this evidence on account of which it can be held that the driver of RJR 6607 was not responsible for this accident.

6. Similarly, so far as the liability of the other truck DHG 1625 to the extent of 10 percent as held by the Tribunal is concerned here again I am in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal as the finding is based on just and proper appreciation of the evidence and the driver of this truck which came close to RJR 6607 and was also instrumental in the accelaration of the accident cannot escape the liability.

7. I am also of the opinion that there is no evidence to show that the car RJL 8207 was parked at a wrong place or in the middle of the road. It was in the kuchha as rightly believed by the Tribunal and there was no fault of Dheer Singh or his driver.

8. Thus the car was parked at the right place in kachha and there was no negligence.

9. Now the first question is whether the compensation allowed is excessive or inadequate or fair and reasonable. Before 1 proceed with the decision on the above points, it must be noticed that from the evidence which has been recorded it has come in evidence that Rao Dheer Singh was having substantial income from various sources and he was an important person for the family from economical point of view apart from his social status. He had remained Deputy Minister in the State of Rajasthan earlier. He had also remained an advocate and was on the rolls of the Bar. He had an agency of tractor and certain other business.

10. The Tribunal's finding that the family would now expect that he was earlier spending Rs. 2.000/- on them would continue in future based on just and proper appreciation of evidence. The dependency of Rs. 2.000/- therefore appears to be reasonable and fair and I accept it.

11. However the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 15 only. He was of 38 years of age at the time of this accident and that being so in my opinion since as per the evidence and family history etc. expectancy of life Rao Dheer Singh but for this accident could be about 70 years, it was not fair for the Tribunal to adopt multiplier of 15. In my opinion for funtioning as a businessman having some agency or an advocate or doing some other work of that nature the family-could have well expected that he would feed them and give benefit of his income upto the age of minimum being 60 years. I would therefore adopt the multiplier of 22. Thus is, the amount of compensation would be 2000×22 × 12 = 5,28,000/-. rupees.

12. Mr. Bhargava argued that the claimants claim is not more than Rs. 3,000/- and therefore this court should not allow compensation of amount more than what has been demanded. In my opinion this objection has got two-folds answers. No. I the claim is for Rs. 5,00,000/- apart from 1,00,000/- for suffering from mental agony etc. These 5,00,000/- are divided into two parts, one is loss of income and financial gains to the family and the other one is loss to a estate. These two concepts and connotations are overlapping and are not exclusive of each other. In my opinion the two overlaps are inclusive, and therefore Rs. 5,00,000/- has been demanded by the claimants on account of the financial loss caused to the family including the family estate due to untimely accidental death of Rao Dheer Singh.

13. Here I may also mention that the cases of compensation stand on a different footing than the case of contracts or money suits or mortgage suits, or easement or transfer of property matters etc. Here the question of pleadings is not very material. I have observed in number of cases that the recent trends of this beneficial legislation for social security is that in cases of compensation even without filing a claim petition from the FIR, a copy of FIR is being sent to the Tribunal or the legal Aid Board in Tamil Nadu State and there on that basis the compensation cases are being tried by the Tribunals. In my opinion there cannot be any rigidity about technical rules of pleadings ‘in matters of compensation to widows injured, destitutes, handicapped and such persons who suffer on account of such accident.

14. In (1) Mst. Kaila Devi v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1987 Delhi 52 the Delhi High Court was concerned with a case similar in nature where compensation claim was Rs. 50,000/-.

15. The High Court came to the conclusion that the compensation which can be allowed is Rs. 1,51,000.46/-.

16. Having held it to be so the High Court was confronted situtation where the claim preferred was less than the claim sought to be allowed.

17. The High Court therefore considered this aspect of the case and allowed compensation of 1,25,000/- inspite of the fact that the claim made was only of Rs. 50,000/-.

18. The Delhi High Court resolved this confrontation by mentioning that the claim was made in 1957 and that the claimants never anticipated raising of the pay scales by the pay commissions so also the fall in the value of rupees due to heavy inflation for the last 17 years and the widow and young minor chil-dern are required to support now in these days. On this ground the High Court allowed compensation more than double than the one claimed.

19. In the present case also we find that the accident took place in the year 1974 and now we are in 1986. There is no doubt that as per the mdex figures and other economic surveys the prices have gone high and the amount of value of rupee on account of inflation has decreased and reduced considerably. Moreover so far as this particular petition is concerned, I find that Rs. 5,00,000 was claimed although in two different heads which overlap each other but both of them relate to the financial loss.

20. I therefore feel no difficulty in granting compensation of Rs. 5,28,000/- for the loss of income and dependency of the family and the loss to estate of the family as a whole.

21. This amount should be distributed in such a manner that half of it should go to the widow Gunwant Kumari. In the remaining half other claimants sons, daughters and mother should share equally. .

22. Now comes the question of disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 by the Tribunal which was calimed for mental agony, physical pain and suffering etc. Here it is true that for mental agony an account of the mental torture which is caused due to the injuries and long ailment cannot be allowed as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this court. However, under this head I would allow Rs. 5,000/- to Smt. Gunwant Kumari who has been deprived of her life partner as consortium and Rs. 2,000/- each to the other five claimants for loss of love and affection. Thus the amount would be Rs. 15,000/- in all. The total compensation would be Rs. 5,43,000/-. The claimants should also get interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till the date of realisation, on this amount.

23. Now the next question which assumes importance is liability of insurance company. I would first take up the case of RJR 6607 truck insured with the Oriental Company of Insurance. Here a policy has been produced by the Insurance Company. That policy has been admitted by the counsel for the truck owner that is the insured. The policy in bold capital letters contains the following caption, commercial vehicle comprehensive (India). A detailed sustained debate was made between the learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the liability is unlimited or it will be limited to Rs. 50,000/-.

24. Mr. Srivastava's submission was that it was limited to Rs. 50,000/- because firstly the schedule makes a mention in which limits of liability has been mentioned as for one (i) Rs. 50,000/- and then for two (i) to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

25. On the page where commercial vehicles comprehensive has been written the liability to third party has been mentioned as subject to the limits of liability the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses with the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by arising out of the use of the motor vehicles.

26. Now it appears that the policy copy of which has been filed contains a important caption commercial vehicles comprehensive. Mr. Srivastava's argument that for Rs. 107 while 63 is premium no comprehonsive policy for liability can be made because the premium would be far more if the liability is comprehensive fails to carry conviction because it is for the insurance company to decide that what premium should be charged From the premium the nature of the policy cannot be judged, assessed or adjudicated. The policy is to be judged, adjuciated and assessed on account of the terms and conditions mentioned therein. A big caption “commercial vehicles comprehensive” was never meant to be a false, bogus, superfecial, attractive slogan only if the submission of Mr. Srivastava is accepted. In my opinion it must be treated as comprehensive, a policy and the insurance company should feel bound by it and respect it.

27. Now the question is when such is the policy and in what manner it should be interpretated I have held in a series of cases, particularly the case of (2) Chand Kanwar reported in (AIR 1986 Raj. 2) part January, that comprehensive policy carries unlimited liability and comprehensive liability. In Darshani Devi's case recently Decided by me I have held that Chand Kanwar's case holds the field even now. Chand Kanwar's case was referred and affirmed in (3) Darshani Devi's case (S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 226 of 1984 decided on 11.9.1986) = 1987 (1) RLR 577, in this case I have again held that when the policy is comprehensive then the liability would be unlimited. In this decision reference was also made to a Division Bench judgment in which Chand Kanwar's case was casually discussed, though pointedly not decided about its correctness.

28. In Mrs. Kaila Devi v. Ram Chandra, (AIR 1986 Del. 52) the nature of policy being comprehensive and liability flowing from it has been discussed in para 4 and later on. In para 5 it has been mentioned that the compensation and interest should be paid by M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. issue draft of cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- and interest and deposit the same with the Registrar of this court.

29. In yet another case of Delhi High Court (4) Mahendra Singh v. Manju, 1986 ACJ 446, the question of insurance company liability has been discussed at length. A certified copy of the policy of the bus was produced to prove the liability in that case and the persons who certified the policy was not produced. The policy register was found smulged and contained overwriting. No attempt was made to get the original policy produced. It was held that the policy was not proved in accordance with law and the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. Para 35 of the above judgment reads as under:—

“In view of the abovesaid discussion also I am satisfied that the insurance company has not proved the contract of, or the policy of insurance in accordance with law. In view of the fact that there had been an admission in the written statement that the policy of insurance was comprehensive policy of insurance, respondent No. 6 has to be held bound by that admission, and it has to be held further that they are liable to pay the entire amount of compensation which has been ordered to be paid, and that their liability is not confined to Rs. 50,000/- as held by the Tribunal.”

30. There is yet another aspect in this case on account of which the liability of the same insurance company is to be considered. The second truck DHG 1625 is also insured with this very insurance company. It is established law that in cases of contributory negligence so far as the third parties are concerned, it is in fact composite negligence. The claimants for the death of Rao Dheer Singh can claim any amount from any of the two truck owners of the insurance company. According to the established law in case of composite negligence which in the present case the liability of both the truck owners and insurance company would be joint and several. In (5) United India Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Mrs. Sayar Kanwar, 1976 ACJ 326, a Division Bench of this High Court considered the composite negligence and held that when there is a collision between two vehicles resulting in the death or injuries sustained by the occupants both the drivers were found gulity and the liability for compensation need not be apportioned because it was a case of composite negligence. In cases of composite negligence the person who was injured or the claimants of the deceased are entitled to damages jointly and severally from the negligence of respondents both. This very view has been taken by me in Mohan Lal's case.

31. That being so the insurance company would also be liable on account of negligence and rashness of the driver of the DHG 1625. Here it is established that the insurance policy has not been produced so far as DHG 1625 is concerned.

32. In the decision of Narain Das Mehta v. Patani Transport Goods Company, I have held that when the insurance policy is not produced then the insurance company cannot take benefit of it on the ground that the liability should be presumed to be minimum under the Motor Vehicles Act. I have held that in such cases the claimants cannot be allowed to remain high and dry because the copy of the insurance policy is always with the insurance company. The insurance company with its mighty resources is always in a position to produce best evidence which they have got and if they failed to do so it must be assumed and presumed that the coverance of the policy are adverse to them. In my opinion this view is sound because the insurance is done for the purposes of providing benefit and covering the risk and the insurance company cannot be allowed to play the game of hidency by non-production of the record which they admittedly have got. In such matters, once it is proved that there was insurance and the insurance company fails to produce the insurance policy, the natural legal logical presumption is that the covenaits are such that the policy is having unlimited liability Consequently in the case of DHG 1625 truck since the liability is composite and no insurance policy has been produced therefore also this very insurance company is liable for unlimited liability.

33. Thus the liability of the insurance company in the present case is of unlimited natnre.

34. The composite liability principles have been discussed above and that being so in either way the insurance company pay the entire amount.

35. The result of the above discussions & decision is that the appeals filed by all the three are accepted in the terms indicated above. The investment and distribution of the payment by the Tribunal would be according to the principles and guidance laid down in Pista Agrawal's case, (1985 RLR 134 : 1986 ACJ 23 : (1985) 1 ACC 466), where I have laid down detailed procedure for ensuring protection to minors and women in particular, as many a times compensation paid at a time is misused and abused by middlemen who take lion's share exploiting the minority and widow or old parents, handicaps and the claimants continue to suffer at the end of litigation also. I have reduced the compensation amount by Rs. 28,000/- as 50,000/- rupees is fairly reasonable amount and it would meet the ends of justice to confine it to Rs. 50,000/- although technical calculation comes to Rs 52,800/- under that caption. In all it would be Rs. 5,15,000/- as per details mentioned above in the earlier part of judgment.

36. Whatever amount has been paid by the insurance company or the other respondents would be adjusted from the payment which is to be made by the insurance company now.