JUDGMENT : J.P. Desai, J. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original opponent in Motor Accidents Claim Application No. 8 of 1975 has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 1-B, Ahmedabad city, whereby Rs. 43,000/- were awarded to Respondent No. 1 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him, while Rs. 25,000/- were awarded to the two Respondents for the death of their minor son who died in the said motor accident. The Respondents have also filed cross-objections with regard to the amount of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by Respondent No. 1 Pravinkumar and claimed additional amount of Rs. 37,000/- as compensation. 2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the petition before the Tribunal may be briefly stated as follows: The Respondents are husband and wife. Divyang aged about 14 years was their son. The Respondents were staying at Maninagar at the time of this incident. Respondent No. 1 owned one scooter No. GJO 4610. On 31.8.1974 Respondent No. 1 was proceeding towards Sardar Bridge on his scooter, his son Divyang being a pillion rider on that scooter, at about 1 p.m. One bus owned by the Appellant-Corporation came from Paldi side and was proceeding towards Sardar Bridge following the said scooter. The bus tried to overtake the scooter and while overtaking the scooter, the S.T. bus brushed past with the scooter in such a way that the left front mudguard of the bus hit the scooter twice as a result of which Respondent Pravinkumar fell down on the road and the scooter ran over him. Divyang, the son of the Respondents, was also thrown off the pillion on account of the said dash by the bus and his head dashed against the northern footpath. Pravinkumar as well as his son were seriously injured and were removed to the V.S. Hospital where the son Divyang ultimately succumbed to the injuries and expired on 7.11.1974, while Pravinkumar survived with serious injuries resulting in permanent disability. The Respondents claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the death of their son, while Respondent Pravinkumar claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for injuries caused to him. Thereafter, amendments were sought for which were allowed by the Tribunal and the claim for the death of the son was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-, while the claim for the injuries sustained by Pravinkumar was raised to Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the death of their son, while Respondent Pravinkumar claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for injuries caused to him. Thereafter, amendments were sought for which were allowed by the Tribunal and the claim for the death of the son was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-, while the claim for the injuries sustained by Pravinkumar was raised to Rs. 1 lac. 3. The Appellant-Corporation filed the written statement denying that bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in this incident. The Corporation also contended that in any case it was not correct to say that the driver of the bus was in any way rash or negligent which resulted in the death of Divyang and injuries to Pravinkumar. The learned Tribunal held on the evidence adduced before it that the bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in the incident and that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent as a result of which this incident took place. The learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the medical evidence disclosed that Pravin-kumar has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly emoluments of Pravinkumar at Rs. 250/- and applying the multiplier of 15, assessed the loss of income at Rs. 45,000/- and awarded Rs. 22,500 because the permanent disability was assessed at 50%. He was also awarded Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 7,500/- on account of loss of amenities and pleasures of life and Rs. 3,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. The Tribunal thus in all awarded Rs. 43,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained by Pravinkumar. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased boy at Rs. 150/- and applying the multiplier of 15 assessed the compensation at Rs. 27,000/- and adding Rs. 3,000/- to the same the figure arrived at was Rs. 30,000/- but awarded Rs. 25,000/- as that much amount was claimed. 4. The first question that arises for our consideration is whether the learned Tribunal committed any error in reaching the conclusion that a bus of the Appellant-Corporation was involved in this incident. The learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of Respondent Pravinkumar Exh. 26, Yogesh Somabhai, Exh. 126 and Bharatbhai Jani, Exh. 127 for reaching the conclusion that a bus of the Appellant-Corporation was involved in this incident. The learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of Respondent Pravinkumar Exh. 26, Yogesh Somabhai, Exh. 126 and Bharatbhai Jani, Exh. 127 for reaching the conclusion that a bus of the Appellant-Corporation was involved in this incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the say of Pravinkumar as observed by the learned Tribunal. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination of Pravinkumar-which will show that he has come out with a false say that a bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in this incident. So far as Yogesh Somabhai, Exh. 126 is concerned, Yogesh admitted that he had not given his name and address to Pravinkumar while leaving the place of the accident. In view of this it was contended that Yogesh could not be relied upon. Even the learned Tribunal has observed in the judgment while discussing the evidence of Yogesh that there was nothing on record to find out as to how Pravinkumar had gathered the name of this witness. The learned Tribunal has at the same time observed that mere absence of that fact does not by itself mean that the witness was a got up one. We may not go to the length of saying that the witness is a got up one, but it will not be safe to rely upon his evidence when there is nothing on record to show as to how this witness was traced by the Applicants for giving evidence in the case. But there is evidence of Bharat Jani Exh. 127 whose evidence inspires confidence as held by the Tribunal. The say of this witness was that he was studying in 10th standard in Best High School at Maninagar and that he knew the deceased because he was also studying in the same school. This witness had gone to attend the N.C.C. parade at Battalion ground opposite Gajjar Hall, Ellis-bridge area for the purpose of rifle training, according to him. He was returning to Maninagar after the training camp was over at about 11.45 a.m. and while returning home on his bicycle, he saw this incident. He knew the deceased and, therefore, the Respondent Pravinkumar, father of the deceased boy, handed over to him the key of his scooter and also a cloth bag to be delivered at his house. He was returning to Maninagar after the training camp was over at about 11.45 a.m. and while returning home on his bicycle, he saw this incident. He knew the deceased and, therefore, the Respondent Pravinkumar, father of the deceased boy, handed over to him the key of his scooter and also a cloth bag to be delivered at his house. An effort was made by the Appellant-Corporation to show that this witness was not telling the truth by examining one Shankarbhai Kacharabhai at Exh. 148 who was working as Physical Instructor and N.C.C. Officer in the Best High School at Maninagar. It was sought to be made out in the evidence of this Shankarbhai that the N.C.C. classes were held at Maninagar and not opposite Gajjar Hall in Ellisbridge area. An entry from a register was produced at Exh. 150 which showed that the N.C.C. parade was held at Maninagar and not in Ellisbridge area. Shankarbhai stated in examination-in-chief that such parades were usually held in the school ground of the Best High School at Maninagar but on the particular day which was a Saturday, the N.C.C. Instructor asked him to take the cadets to the ground opposite Gajjar Hall for the purpose of rifle training and that the witness Bharatbhai was one of the N.C.C. Cadets who had attended the said parade. The substantive evidence of this Shankarbhai, therefore, on the contrary corroborates the say of Bharat that he had gone to attend the rifle parade opposite Gajjar Hall in Ellisbridge area. The learned Trii bunal has, in these circumstances, rightly relied upon Bharat, Exh. 127 as a truthful witness. The evidence of Respondent Pravinkumar read with the evidence of Bharat, Exh. 127 read with the evidence of Shankarbhai, Exh. 148 examined on behalf of the S.T. Corporation leaves no doubt that the incident took place as alleged by the original Petitioner and the bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in this incident. Even the panchnama, Exh. 138 prepared by the police a few hours after the incident on the same day shows that it was disclosed to police that bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in this incident. Even the panchnama, Exh. 138 prepared by the police a few hours after the incident on the same day shows that it was disclosed to police that bus of the S.T. Corporation was involved in this incident. We, therefore, see no reason to differ from the learned Tribunal so far as its finding as regards involvement of a bus of Appellant-Corporation in this incident and rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the said bus is concerned. 5. So far as quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of Respondent Pravinkumar at Rs. 250/- p.m., Rs. 170/- being the basic salary and Rs. 80/- being D.A. admissible to Pravinkumar at the time of the incident. Pravinkumar was serving in the scale of Rs. 75-250 while his basic salary at the time of the incident was Rs. 170/-. The learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 and on that basis assessed income for 15 years at Rs. 45,000/- and arrived at the figure of Rs. 22,500/- being 50% of that amount. Looking to the material which was on record before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in arriving at this figure. But civil application being Civil Application No. 4460 of 1985 has been filed before this Court on behalf of the Respondents who have filed cross-objections and along with the same a copy of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 130 of 1977 delivered on March 24,1977 and a copy of the order passed by the Labour Court in Rec. Application No. 3527 of 1973 have been produced, which show that during the period from January 1973 to August, 1973, dearness allowance of Rs. 235.27 p. was admissible to Pravinkumar who was serving with the mill at the retail shop. This decision was rendered by the Labour Court on 20.4.1977 i.e. about six months after the award was passed by the learned Tribunal. The decision was rendered by this Court on March 24,1977 and that is also about five to six months after the award was passed by the learned Tribunal. These two decisions which have been rendered after the award of the Tribunal can definitely be looked into by this Court. The decision was rendered by this Court on March 24,1977 and that is also about five to six months after the award was passed by the learned Tribunal. These two decisions which have been rendered after the award of the Tribunal can definitely be looked into by this Court. We have, after hearing the learned advocates, taken these two judgments into consideration so far as the assessment of the income of Pravinkumar is concerned. The judgment delivered by the Labour Court shows that Pravinkumar was entitled to deamess allowance of Rs. 235.27 p. per month over and above the basic salary. The total comes to Rs. 405/-. That was in the year 1973. The Respondent Pravinkumar would have earned increments in the scale of Rs. 75-250. His basic salary, therefore, would have been increased from time to time. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that dearness allowance admissible to the staff of textile mills at Ahmedabad has increased from day to day and it has increased to about three times the dearness allowance admissible in the year 1973. Taking these facts into consideration, we can assess the loss of income on average at Rs. 600/- per month and that way the income for 15 years will come to Rs. 1,08,000/-. 50% of that amount will come to Rs. 54,000/-. The Respondent Pravinkumar will thus be entitled to Rs. 54,000/- as against Rs. 22,500/- on this count assessed by the learned Tribunal. So far as the other counts are concerned, the amounts assessed by the learned Tribunal appear to be quite just and reasonable. The total amount of compensation which the Respondent Pravinkumar is thus entitled for the injuries sustained by him comes to Rs. 74,500/- (Rs. 54,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 7,500/- + Rs. 3,000/-). The appeal filed by the S.T. Corporation, so far as the claim of Pravinkumar is concerned, is, therefore, required to be dismissed and on the other hand, the cross-objections filed by the Respondent Pravinkumar are required to be partly allowed to the above extent. 6. So far as the award of Rs. 25,000/- for the death of the boy Divyang is concerned, the learned advocate Mr. 6. So far as the award of Rs. 25,000/- for the death of the boy Divyang is concerned, the learned advocate Mr. M.D. Pandya urged that the learned Tribunal committed an error in not deducting any amount from the amount of compensation arrived at for the death of Divyang as would be required to be done, looking to the fact that Divyang would have in due course married and would have-been liable to spend for his wife and children. We find much substance-in the submission of Mr. Pandya. But at the same time it appears that the monthly income was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 150/- per month only. The boy was studying in 9th Standard. Even if he had served as a clerk just as his father was doing, the income assessed at Rs. 150/- can be said to be too low. We can reasonably assess the income of the deceased boy at Rs. 450/- per month and if we calculate the amount of compensation awarded to the Respondents for the death of the deceased boy Divyang on that basis, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- cannot in any way be said to be excessive. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded for the death of the boy Divyang can be said to be quite just and proper and cannot be said to err on the side of the Respondents. No interference is, therefore, called for so far as the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded for the death of Divyang is concerned, though, of course, for the reasons recorded above. 7. So far as the appeal of the S.T. Corporation is concerned, it is being dismissed as we find no substance therein. We see no reason why the Respondents should not get the costs of the appeal from the Appellant-Corporation. 8. So far as the cross-objections are concerned, they are substantially allowed. We have to bear in mind that the cross-objections are allowed on the basis of the additional evidence produced before this Court in the form of judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Labour Court. That material was not available to the Tribunal when it passed the award. In view of this, we propose to leave the parties to bear their own costs of this Court, so far as the cross-objections are concerned. 9. That material was not available to the Tribunal when it passed the award. In view of this, we propose to leave the parties to bear their own costs of this Court, so far as the cross-objections are concerned. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, First Appeal No. 402 of 1977 filed by the S.T. Corporation is dismissed with costs, while the cross-objections filed by the Respondents are partly allowed. The Appellant-Corporation will pay to the Respondent Pravinkumar an additional amount of Rs. 31,500/- with running interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application filed before the Tribunal till realisation. 10. Out of the additional amount of compensation together with costs and interest, Rs. 10,000/- to be paid in cash to Pravinkumar Manilal, the original Applicant, Rs. 12,000/- to be invested in N.S.C. Sixth Series so that Pravinkumar gets double the amount after a period of six years, while the rest of the amount to be invested in a nationalised bank of the choice of Pravinkumar for such period as the Tribunal deems fit. Appeal dismissed.