JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—By this appeal, the Himachal Road Transport Corporation challenges the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti districts in claim petition No. 1 of 1980 decided on 29-9-1981. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 17-7-1979 at about 2.45 p. m. Bus No. HPU 494 driven by Saran Dass driver was coming from Simla to Kullu. At Dhalpur bazar, near the State Bank of India, it struck against scooter No. HPS 920, driven by one Charan Dass. Rup Chand deceased was the pillion rider. The driver was driving the bus in a very rash and negligent manner and went to his right side leaving virtually no place for the scooter to pass through its extreme left side. The deceased fell down on the road side, received head injury and later on succumbed to the same in Civil Hospital, Kullu. 3. The claimant, Smt. Guddi, is the widow of the deceased Rup Chand. This claim petition has been filed by the widow of the deceased, his mother (Smt. Heti Devi and minor son Jagat Ram). They claim compensation to the extent of Rs, 1,50,000 from the respondents. 4. The respondents denied that the claimant, Smt. Guddi, was the widow of the deceased and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus and that the injuries sustained were not as a result of this accident. Respondent, Saran Dass, in his reply asserted that the scooter did not belong to the deceased nor he had any driving license. The accident took place due to the mistake of the scooter driver and at the time of the accident he was driving the bus at a very reasonable speed and he was not rash and negligent while driving the bus. The deceased himself fell down from the scooter and sustained head injury as he was inexperienced in driving the scooter 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:— 1. Whether the petition is within limitation ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is heir and legal representative of deceased Rup Chand ? OPP 3. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the respondent No 2? OPP. 4. Whether the petition is within limitation ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is heir and legal representative of deceased Rup Chand ? OPP 3. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the respondent No 2? OPP. 4. In case Issue No. 3 is held in the affirmative to what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled ? OPP. 5. Relief 6. All the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and, ultimately, an award to the extent of Rs. 58,600 with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award till the payment thereof was made. 7. Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation, > has confined his submissions to the rash and negligent driving attributed^ to the bus driver and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 8. Charan Dass (PW 4) states that on 17-7-1979 he was going towards Puri Petrol Pump on his scooter No. HPS 920 for getting petrol. The deceased Rup Chand met him at Dhalpur at about 2.30 p. m. and on his asking he gave him a lift on his scooter as he wanted to go to the office of the H. P. M. C. at Gandhi Nagar. When he reached near the State Bank of India, bus bearing No. HPM 494 came from the opposite side at a high speed. He was driving the scooter on his left side but the bus came at an excessive speed towards his scooter. On this, he again put his scooter to his extreme left. Still the bus coming at a high speed struck against his scooter and as he saw the bus coming on to him, he jumped down from his scooter and in the meanwhile the bus struck against the scooter when the deceased was still on the scooter and he struck against the bus In the meantime a truck came there and Rup Chand was removed to the hospital in that truck. He lodged a report at Police Station, Kullu, with regard to this accident. The Police recorded his statement Ex. PW 4/A. Respondent Saran Dass was driving the bus at that time and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He lodged a report at Police Station, Kullu, with regard to this accident. The Police recorded his statement Ex. PW 4/A. Respondent Saran Dass was driving the bus at that time and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He denied the suggestion that he took an immediate turn and the driver of the bus made an effort to save him and that he was on the wrong side or that he had overtaken the bus and that the scooter struck against the foot path by the side of the road as the same could not be properly controlled by him. He further states that he was driving the scooter at that time. He had a driving license which he produced before the Police. He also denied that the accident took place due to his negligence. 9. His statement has been supported by Nathu (PW 5) who also states that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it collided with the scooter by going on the wrong side of the road ,10. On the other hand, Sh. Saran Dass, respondent, states that the accident took place when about fifty yards ahead of him the scooter driver took a turn for going back. In order to save the scooter, he drove the vehicle to the right side and when the bus came near the scooter, the driver of the scooter became nervous and stopped the scooter with the result that the man sitting on his back fell down and his head struck against the Danga over there. He further states that the bus was being driven at a normal speed at that time. He admits that the Police came on the spot, took photograph Ex. P-Y in which he is also standing. He also admits that the road at the place of accident was so wide that three buses could pass there. He has been supported by Lai Dass (RW), a passenger in the bus but it is stated by this witness that the deceased struck against the scooter itself instead of the parapet as stated by the driver There/is also a photograph, Ex. P-Y, taken by the Police when it reached the spot/ 11. He has been supported by Lai Dass (RW), a passenger in the bus but it is stated by this witness that the deceased struck against the scooter itself instead of the parapet as stated by the driver There/is also a photograph, Ex. P-Y, taken by the Police when it reached the spot/ 11. From the perusal of the evidence on this aspect of the matter, it is apparent that the rcac1 at the place of accident was even and/wide enough to enable three buses to pass simultaneously. The bus was being driven at a high speed otherwise it could have stopped on application of brakes for away from the accident. The scooter was moving on its left side Coming of the bus to the right side instead of going to its left side clearly evidences the highly reckless and negligent manner in which the bus was being driven by the respondent driver. Further, there is convincing evidence to show that the scooter driver took the scooter from his left side to the extreme left when he saw the bus coming on to him. Thereafter, there was no passage for him to save himself from the accident as there came the parapet. All these facts are absolutely clear from the photograph (Ex. P-Y) and leave no manner of doubt as to the rash and negligent act of the driver. The evidence produced in defence by the driver does not at all inspire any confidence. Lai Dass (RW) appears to have been picked up to make statement in the Court. The Tribunal has dealt with this matter quite exhaustively and the conclusions arrived at are apt, just and in accordance with the evidence on record. 12. Coming to the second part of the case of the appellant, Smt. Guddi (PW 1) states that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and the claimants were dependent upon him. The deceased was an agriculturist and in addition to agricultural work, he used to deal in fruits by taking apple orchards on contract. The deceased was also doing potato business. He was also Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Bandrol. He used to earn between rupees thirty thousand-forty thousand per annum. She further states that the deceased used to pay income tax and income tax papers were in her possession. Dot Ram (PW 6) is a practising Advocate at Kullu. The deceased was also doing potato business. He was also Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Bandrol. He used to earn between rupees thirty thousand-forty thousand per annum. She further states that the deceased used to pay income tax and income tax papers were in her possession. Dot Ram (PW 6) is a practising Advocate at Kullu. He states that prior to joining the profession, he used to work with M/s. Jashan Sons as Commission Agent. The deceased used to supply fruits to this firm every year worth about Rs. 50,000 to Rs 60,000. Potam Singh (PW 7) is a Panch of Gram Panchayat Bandrol. He also states that the deceased used to earn Rs. thirty thousand to Rs. thirty five thousand per annum from all sources like agriculture, apple fruit and potatoes. He was the sole earning member of the family and all members in the family were dependent upon him. 13. No evidence has been produced by the respondents in rebuttal as to the income of the deceased. Although income tax documents have not been filed by the widow of the deceased, however, probable estimate as to his income can be made. The tribunal has fixed the same at Rs. 500 per month which is grossly inadequate keeping in view the evidence on the record. It was quite safe and reasonable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month. The deceased would be spending l/3rd of the same on his own self. Thus, leaving the figure of Rs. 1,333 or say Rs. 1,300. There is no evidence that longevity in the family of the deceased is short rather it can be said that the same may be between 60 to 65 years atleast. Age of the deceased was 31 years and he had long life to go as such, multiplier of 15 can be reasonably applied in such a case. Therefore, the total amount of compensation awardable in this case could come to Rs. 2,34,000. The petitioners would also be entitled to conventional amount of Rs. 3,000 bringing the total amount to Rs. 2,37,000. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs 58,600 which is otherwise inadequate in this case. However, there is neither a cross-appeal7 nor the claimants have filed any cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22, C P. G. against this award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 7 14. 3,000 bringing the total amount to Rs. 2,37,000. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs 58,600 which is otherwise inadequate in this case. However, there is neither a cross-appeal7 nor the claimants have filed any cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22, C P. G. against this award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 7 14. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant will pay Rs. 1,000 as costs of this petition to the claimants-respondents. Appeal dismissed.