JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 7-9-1982 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jodhpur, therefore, they are disposed of together by this common order. This judgment will also dispose of the cross-objections filed on behalf of the claimants. 2. The brief facts giving rise to those appeals are that on 25-4-1979 at 10 A.M. deceased Pakhiya along with his brother Savia was going on cycle on Mokalsar-Patna Road. Deceased Pakhiya was driving the cycle in the right side slowly. But a bus bearing No. RJT 1765 came with an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the cycle, as a result of which Pakhiya and his brother claimant Savia fell down and the bus over run deceased Pakhiya. Therefore, he died on the spot. Claimant Savia also received serious injuries and he was immediately taken to the Hospital. Therefore, he survived. The bus was driven by non-claimant Dashrath Singh and Jagtarsingh was its owner. The nonclaimant No 3 was M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. with which the vehicle was insured. The non-complaint No. Thansingh was also impleaded as a party in the event of his being driver of the vehicle. 3. The Tribunal after recording the necessary evidence and hearing the parties found that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it is further found that Pakhiya was aged about 25 years and his income was found to Rs. 300/- per month and out of that amount of Rs. 200/- he was spending on his parents and dependents. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the claimants father, mother and widow of the deceased by employing the multiplier of 20 years. The Tribunal also allowed the claim petition of Savia who had also received injuries and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- . Aggrieved against this common award of these claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the Insurance Company has filed both these appeals before this Court. 4. Now, first taking the appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1983). In this appeal the claim of the claimants mother, father and widow has been decreed to the extent of Rs .48,000,/- . Mr. 4. Now, first taking the appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1983). In this appeal the claim of the claimants mother, father and widow has been decreed to the extent of Rs .48,000,/- . Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 300/- per month without any documentary evidence. He has also submitted that the multiplier of 20 years in the present case is also excessive. He has also submitted that the deceased Mst. Gairki has already contacted a 'Natak Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 48,000/- . 5. I have perused the award and have also gone through the necessary evidence. After going through the record find that on the basis of the testimony of the claimants the Tribunal found the income of the deceased to be Rs. 300/- per month and on that basis it further found that ⅓rd of this amount the claimant could have spent on himself and the remaining ⅔rd amount i.e. Rs. 200/- per month he was spending on the maintenance of his parents and widow. Likewise, the multiplier of 20 years applied in the present case cannot be said to be excessive. Now coming the question whether Mst. Gairki contacted a nata or not. According to the evidence on record she has clearly said that she has not contracted any Nata. The evidence of serpanch and her brother was pressed into service who deposed that she has gone to Nata Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants has also made a statement at the Bar after verifying the fact that Mst. Gairki has not gone in Nata. Therefore, in this view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal that Mst. Gairki has not gone to Nata should be sustained. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- for the death of a young man aged 25 years. The amount of compensation does not appear to be excessive so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 7. The amount of compensation does not appear to be excessive so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 7. Now, coming to the cross-objection filed by these claimants. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that the 20 years multiplier applied by the Tribunal in the present case is too low. Therefore, it should be suitably enhanced. Since the father of the deceased was aged 55 years and the mother of the deceased was aged about 48 years. The life expectancy of the parents in this case has been taken 70 years, secondly custom in this community also permits for Nata and/or remarriage of widow. Therefore, in these circumstances the amount of compensation does not appear to be too low to be increased, Thus, I do not find any merit in the cross-objection and the same are rejected. 8. Now, coming to the claim of Savia. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Savia for his injuries. Aggrieved against this the Insurance Company has filed appeal No, 99 of 1983. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10.000/- for partial permanent disablement and loss of future income, Rs. 8,000/- for mental and physical agony, Rs. 200/- for transposition and Rs. 1,800/- for medical expenses, whereas according to its own finding the actual expenses for transportation was Rs. 400/- . Similarly for medical expenses it was found that a sum of Rs. 2,800/ were spent whereas in the calculation he has taken it to Rs. 1,800/- . This appears to be an error of calculation. 9. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award for physical and mental agony cannot be given together. I do not think the submission of the learned counsel appears to be correct. A man can have both the pains i.e. physical as well as he may have mental shock also. Thus, for physical agony and mental torture, the amount of compensation can be awarded. The amount of claim decreed by the Tribunal appears to be justified in the present case. However, in view of the calculation error the amount of award should have been Rs. Thus, for physical agony and mental torture, the amount of compensation can be awarded. The amount of claim decreed by the Tribunal appears to be justified in the present case. However, in view of the calculation error the amount of award should have been Rs. 21,200/- because the learned Tribunal has found that the actual medical expenses were Rs. 2,800/- and taxi expenses were Rs 400/- whereas for calculation in para 49 they have taken the medical expenses to Rs. 1,800/- and taxi expenses to Rs. 200/:. This appears to be a clerical error. The claimants Savia is entitled to Rs. 21,200/- as compensation. 10. There is no merit in both these appeals and the same are dismissed, likewise the cross-objection. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.Appeal dismissed. *******