JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 11od of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, against the award passed by Claims Tribunal and District Judge, bhind, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Civil Misc. Case No. 7 of 1971. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Jagannath Prasad was the owner of bus No. MPG 5971 and non-applicant No. 2 Gokaran singh was the driver. The bus was insured with non-applicant No. 3 and when the non-applicant No. 2 was driving the bus, when he was in the employment of non-applicant No. I, an accident took place on Lahar-Bhind road, near village Pon, on 18-2-1971. At that time, non-applicant No. 2 was driving the bus rashly and negligently and as such, in the accident Mayadevi and devendra Kumar sustained injuries and they died on the spot. Mayadevi is wife of the applicant Hari Mohan. Further, the applicant has stated that during the relevant time he was a student of Intermediate College, Rampura, and the deceased Mayadevi was his wife. When the accident took place, mayadevi was 16 years old. At the time of the accident, the applicant, along with his brothers Surendra Mohan, Ramsewak and Devendra Kumar, was travelling in a bullock-cart on Lahar-Bhind road. The alleged bus was driven rashly and negligently and it dashed against the bullock cart, as a result of which Mayadevi and Devendra Kumar died on the spot. Rest of the occupants of the bullock-cart suffered injuries. The bullock-cart was also damaged and the bullocks sustained injuries and one of them died. The applicant, on account of injuries and loss of his wife, could not prosecute his studies and suffered, both-mentally and physically. On this basis, he has claimed Rs. 60,000 as compensation from the non-applicants severally and jointly. ( 3. ) ALL the non-applicants have resisted the claim of the applicant and their case was that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver, but it was purely an accident. The defence of the Insurance Company was that if compensation is awarded, then the Insurance Company will be liable only to the extent of Rs. 20,000. The other objection was that the application is barred by limitation. Further, all the non-applicants have denied that the applicant is entitled to any compensation. ( 4. The defence of the Insurance Company was that if compensation is awarded, then the Insurance Company will be liable only to the extent of Rs. 20,000. The other objection was that the application is barred by limitation. Further, all the non-applicants have denied that the applicant is entitled to any compensation. ( 4. ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased Mayadevi was the wife of the applicant? 2. Whether the N. A. No. 2 Gokaransingh was driving the bus no. MPG 5971 during the course of employment of N. A. No. 1 Jagannath prasad at the time of the accident ? 3. Whether the applicant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by N. A. No. 2-Gokaransingh? 4. Whether the deceased Mayadevi died due to rash and negligent driving by N. A. No. 2 Gokaransingh? 5. Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain the compensation for injuries to his person and also for the death of his wife? if so, how much and from whom? 6. Whether the application is not maintainable as it is not in the prescribed form? 7. Whether the application is barred by limitation? 8. Relief and costs? ( 5. ) THE first point decided by the learned Tribunal is that the application is within limitation and the application, as filed, is maintainable. It was not seriously disputed before me that the findings regarding issues Nos. 6 and 7 are not bad in law. Therefore, I confirm those findings. ( 6. ) THE Insurance Company has filed cross-objections against the award given by the learned Tribunal and submitted that the case is of pure accident and that the driver of the bus was not driving the bus negligently and rashly. But, in my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted, when the evidence produced by the applicant is sufficient to prove that while driving the bus, the bus driver was negligent and rash. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the cross-objections filed by the insurance Company within limitation and they are hereby rejected. ( 7. ) THE claim regarding compensation is considered by the learned tribunal in para 17 of its judgment and the learned Tribunal has divided the compensation in two heads, one-general and the other special. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the cross-objections filed by the insurance Company within limitation and they are hereby rejected. ( 7. ) THE claim regarding compensation is considered by the learned tribunal in para 17 of its judgment and the learned Tribunal has divided the compensation in two heads, one-general and the other special. It has further stated that for special damages, there should be a specific pleading, but in the present case no such specific pleadings are found on the said point. The claim put forward by the applicant is a lump sum, which includes special as well as general damages. For medical treatment, the learned Tribunal has observed that the applicant must not have spent more than Rs. 10 when he has claimed Rs. 250 as medical expenses. In my opinion, the findings of the learned Tribunal that for medical expenses Rs. 10 is sufficient, is just to ignore the present high prices of medicines and if there is a doctor, charges for attending on the patients. Therefore, in my opinion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for medical expenses should be increased from Rs. 10 to Rs. 150 and I do accordingly. ( 8. ) THE next claim is regarding the loss suffered on account of the death of bullock and damage caused to the bullock-cart. the learned tribunal, after discussing the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to a claim of Rs. 1,250 on account of death of the bullock and loss suffered by the applicant on account of the damage to the cart also. I do not see anything unreasonable in the amount awarded, and therefore, i confirm the findings given by the learned Tribunal with respect to the loss suffered on account of loss of bullock and damage to the cart. ( 9. ) AS to the general damages, it is stated by the learned Tribunal in para 21 of its judgment that when the accident took place, the applicant was a student of VIIth class and on account of death of his wife, he was mentally upset and could not clear the examination of the class. Further, it is stated that because of the death of his wife, he had to engage a maid servant at Rs. 100 per month. His ambition was to become a doctor. Further, it is stated that because of the death of his wife, he had to engage a maid servant at Rs. 100 per month. His ambition was to become a doctor. Further, he has stated that because of death of Mayadevi, he was denied the company of his wife. ( 10. ) THE learned Tribunal has stated that because of death of Mayadevi, the applicant has not suffered any pecuniary loss, but it has not considered the important aspect of loss of company of Mayadevi by the applicant further, it has stated that the claim put forward by him that he would have been a doctor, is also far from truth. There is no evidence to show that he was a very brilliant student and that he had sufficient means to become a doctor. Further, even assuming what is stated by the applicant to be correct, the alleged loss will be too remote and no compensation is paid for remote damages. ( 11. ) LASTLY, the applicant had been given Rs. 500 as damages for mental shock and sufferings. I do not see anything unreasonable in the said amount. The total amount of award comes to Rs. 1,760. The learned Trial Court has also directed that the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 3 per cent per annum from the date of award till payment. ( 12. ) BUT, in the Award the learned Tribunal has not given any compensation for loss of the company sufferred by the applicant because of death of his wife Mayadevi. I may refer to K. Narayana Reddiar v. P. Venugopala reddiar (1976 ACJ474) in which it is held as under;- " The learned counsel for the respondent contended that even assuming that damages under this head could not be awarded under the Fatal accidents Act, compensation for loss of consortium can be awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. He relied on section 110-B of the Act which provides that the Claims Tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. He relied on section 110-B of the Act which provides that the Claims Tribunal shall determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. He therefore submitted firstly, that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is distinct from damages and secondly, the Tribunal is entitled to award such compensation which appears to it to be just and so, whatever may be the position under the ordinary law of Torts or under the Fatal Accidents Act, the tribunal is free to award such compensation which appears to it to be just untrammelled by the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act or the ordinary Law of Torts. He also drew our attention to the fact that the expression which is used in section 110 which deals with the establishment of Claims Tribunal, section 110a which deals with the application for compensation to be made in the case of an accident, as well as section 110-B which deals with the award of Tribunal is compensation and not damages. If it appears to be just to the Tribunal to award compensation for the loss of consortium, it was free to do so. On the other hand, it was pointed out by Mr. Venugopal Reddy that the Tribunal has to apply the ordinary law just like any other Civil Court. In assessing the compensation it has to be guided by the principles which the Civil Court will follow in a similar case. The provisions relating to claims arising out of the accidents involving motor vehicles are only intended for providing an easy and summary remedy for obtaining relief in the case of an accident. Instead of filing a regular suit in a Civil Court, the relations or other persons referred to in section 110-A are entitled to approach the Tribunal for relief. The substantive Law of tort is not intended to be altered by the above provisions of the Motor vehicles Act. We are inclined to agree with this submission. The object of introducing these provisions was to provide a speedy remedy for the adjudication of claims relating to accidents involving motor vehicles. We do not think that the Legislature intended that a different Law of Tort should be applicable to persons injured in motor vehicles accidents from those injured in other accidents. The object of introducing these provisions was to provide a speedy remedy for the adjudication of claims relating to accidents involving motor vehicles. We do not think that the Legislature intended that a different Law of Tort should be applicable to persons injured in motor vehicles accidents from those injured in other accidents. We do not think that it was intended by the use of the expression compensation that the persons injured should be entitled to more than damages which they would be entitled under the Law of Tort. The expression just in our view does not have any added significance, as compensation would by itself mean a proper recompense for the injuries. Even without the addition of the word just there can be no doubt that the compensation awarded must be what is considered just by the Court in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Ishwari Devi v. Union of India in which it was observed that the Fatal Accidents Act is a general law providing for compensation to the representatives of a deceased person or to his estate for the loss occasioned by his death as a result of an accident. On the other hand, the Motor Vehicles Act is a special law which by sections 110 to 1i0-F provides for adjudication upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or injury to persons, arising out of the use of motor vehicles. The decisions under the Fatal Accidents Act are not directly applicable to a claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. The word just has wider ambit than the word used in section 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The Tribunal need not strictly follow and apply the basis of the assessment of compensation indicated in the various decisions under the Fatal Accidents Act or under English law. It is, however, to be noted on a perusal of decision, that ultimately compensation was awarded under the head, namely, compensation for pecuniary or material loss caused by death of a person. It was stated that this principle provides a sound and reasonable basis assessing just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, however, to be noted on a perusal of decision, that ultimately compensation was awarded under the head, namely, compensation for pecuniary or material loss caused by death of a person. It was stated that this principle provides a sound and reasonable basis assessing just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in gobald Motor Service v. Veluswa which was a case arising out of the Fatal accidents Act was applied in this case also. It was observed that no other head of claim was canvassed before them. It is thus seen that the observations that the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not bound by the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act or by the ordinary Law of tort are only in the nature of obiter. "it is however, unnecessary to consider this question further as we have already held that even under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, the husband is entitled to damages for the loss of consortium. In this case, the Tribunal has fixed damages under this head at Rs. 4,000. Though the Tribunal has not given any basis for arriving at this amount, it has not been shown as to how this amount is excessive. The wife was aged about 50 years and said to be hale and healthy. The husband has given his age has 56 years. We cannot say that Rs. 4,000 under this head is excessive so as to require interference in appeal. " Relying on this judgment, I hold that the applicant is entitled to get damages for loss of consortium and taking into consideration the age of the applicant and his wife at the time of her death, I am of the view that Rs. 5,000 will be sufficient compensation on this account. ( 13. ) THE result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed partly. The amount of compensation is raised from Rs. 1,760 to Rs. 6,900 as detailed above. This amount will carry interest at the rate of Rs. 3 per cent per annum from the date of this order till the payment of the amount. The cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.