JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - These two appeals arise out of two applications filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the legal representatives of K.A. Kutty and P. Verghese who died in an accident on 13-3-1975. The applications were heard analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment. As common questions are involved, these appeals were also heard analogously and are being disposed of by a judgment. 2. K.A. Kutty was an employee of Messrs Hackett Engineering Company. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 863/- besides bonus and other benefits. Verghese was working as a Construction Assistant in the Rourkela Steel Plant of Hindustan Steel (now Steel Authority of India). On the tragic day, Kutty picked up his friend Verghese as a pillion rider and was proceeding on the ring road in front of S.K.D A.V. Polytechnic for woman towards Sector No. 13. From the opposite direction a bus bearing registration number ORO 3223 belonging to the Steel Plant driven by respondent No. 3 approached the scooter and it suddenly turned to its right, ran over the road island, dashed against the scooter and then against a tree and capsized. Kutty and Verghese were crushed under the bus and died at the spot. The claimants were the widow and minor daughter of Kutty and widow of Verghese. Separate applications were filed by them. 3. The plea of the owner was that the bus was carrying school children. Because of small pot-holes on the road, the main front spring plate snapped, the vehicle went out of control and turned to its right, went over the dividing island and caused the accident. It is alleged that the accident could have been averted but for the nervousness shown by Kutty. The insurer while adopting the pleas of the owner of the insured raised specifically a ground that it was liable, if at all, to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in all. The balance would be borne by the insurer. 4. The claimants examined three witnesses and the opposite parties examined the driver of the bus. 5. Upon a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It calculated the compensation payable to the legal representatives of Kutty at Rs. 4. The claimants examined three witnesses and the opposite parties examined the driver of the bus. 5. Upon a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It calculated the compensation payable to the legal representatives of Kutty at Rs. 83,500/- and that payable to the widow of Verghese at 72,000/- treating the liability of the insurer at Rs. 50,000/- in all. It directed that the insurer to pay Rs. 30,000/- out of the amount awarded to the legal representatives of Kutty and pay Rs. 20,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of Verghese and the balance was to be paid by the owner. 6. The owner of the vehicle has filed these appeals challenging the award. The claimants have also filed cross-objections challenging the compensation awarded as low. 7. Though the learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the driver was not liable for the accident, on going through the materials, I am at one with the Tribunal that but for his rash and negligent driving, the accident would not have taken place. Though eye witnesses have been examined, conclusion can also be drawn by applying the principle of res ipso loquitor. There is no question of the scooter being driven rashly and negligently so that there could be any contribution by it to the causation. The owner and the driver took a positive plea but they miserably failed to establish the same. P.Ws. 1 an 3 have vividly described as to how the accident took place. The Tribunal has believed their version. Nothing persuasive has been placed before me to upset the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of the driver and has discarded his version. I concur in its conclusion. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at the relevant time. 8. It was next urged that the relationship of C. Malthy (respondent No. 1 in M.A. 242/81) with Kutty had not been established. It adds to the injury and 1 have no hesitation in rejecting the same. The point was not urged before the Tribunal. 8. It was next urged that the relationship of C. Malthy (respondent No. 1 in M.A. 242/81) with Kutty had not been established. It adds to the injury and 1 have no hesitation in rejecting the same. The point was not urged before the Tribunal. The parties not being at issue over the relationship, no evidence was adduced by respondent No. 1 and the question was not gone into by the Tribunal and rightly so. The hollowness in the argument would be patent from the stand of the appellant in paragraph-6 of its written statement which reads as under: That the deceased has properties to which the claimant is admittedly entitled. The amount to which the claimant is entitled as a result of the death of the deceased has also to be taken into consideration in case any compensation is paid to the deceased. The argument has but to collapse in view of the aforesaid pleading. Can there be any other inference other than that the relationship was admitted by the owner. 9. Though the compensation awarded has not been challenged by the owner-appellant, the claimants have assailed the same in their cross-objections. 10. In ray opinion, the compensation needs enhancement. The Tribunal assessed the dependency or contribution with reference to the income of the deceased on the date of accident and quantified the compensation by applying 20 years purchase in Kutty's case and 18 years purchase in Ver-ghese's case. Compensation was not awarded for loss of consortium, pain and suffering or loss of estate. Compensation was not quantified with reference to the prospects in service, namely, increments year after year and prospects of promotion etc. Even after quantifying by applying the number of years purchase mulitiplier, the Tribunal reduced by 1/6 for uncertainties of life and benefit of lump-sum payment. In my opinion, this was not permissible. The computation should not be made in a mechanical and careless manner but with empathy placing oneself in the shoes of the claimant who has lost his/her near and dear one; a loss which no Court or Tribunal can restore. The accident has not only removed the bread-earner but much more. In my opinion, this was not permissible. The computation should not be made in a mechanical and careless manner but with empathy placing oneself in the shoes of the claimant who has lost his/her near and dear one; a loss which no Court or Tribunal can restore. The accident has not only removed the bread-earner but much more. Therefore, in computing the compensation the Court or Tribunal should not be rigid but liberal, though, no doubt, the award be just and reasonable as far as it can be I, therefore, restore the gross dependency determined by the Tribunal and annual the deduction made. That would do justice to the claimants The legal representatives of Kutty (respondents 1 and 2 in MA. 242/81) are entitled to compensation of Rs. 96,000/- and the legal representative of Verghese (respondent No. 1 in M.A. 243/81) is entitled to Rs. 84,400/-. 11. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that the liability of the insurer in regard to both the cases is Rs 50,000/- in all. The ratio laid down in Motor Owners' Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Others, is equally applicable to a case u/s 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the liability of the insurer, when the vehicle is a passenger vehicle, is Rs. 50,000/- in all in respect of each person involved in the accident where the person is other than passenger carried for hire or reward. Kutty and Yerghese not being passengers carried in the vehicle but third parties, liability of the insurer in regard to each of them is Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, out of the amount awarded for the death of Kutty (M.A. 242/81), the insurer shall bear Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be borne by the owner and in the case of Verghese, the insurer shall bear Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be borne by the owner. The amount shall carry 6 per cent interest from the date of application till realisation. If the amount is not paid within three months, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The insurer and the owner shall deposit the amount with the Tribunal within the aforesaid period. After the amount is deposited, 50% therefrom shall be deposited under the fixed deposit scheme for 10 years in the name of the claimants in any nationalised bank. 12. The insurer and the owner shall deposit the amount with the Tribunal within the aforesaid period. After the amount is deposited, 50% therefrom shall be deposited under the fixed deposit scheme for 10 years in the name of the claimants in any nationalised bank. 12. In the result, the appeals and cross-appeals are allowed in part, with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250/-.