JUDGMENT B.C. Verma, J. 1. The Order in this Appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1981 (M.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Laxman Singh Bais). 2. On Katni-JabalpurRoad, Bus No. MPW 8021 owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and motor cycle M.P.W 9443 collided and an accident took place. Vijay Singh and Ramkrishna were on the pillion of the motor cycle which was driven by the owner Laxman Singh. The bus was being driven by appellant Jagdish. As a result of that accident, Vijay Singh died while the other pillion rider sustained injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased Vijay Singh claimed compensation under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Vijay Singh while Laxman Singh claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The claim was tried by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur which by two separate awards delivered on 7.8.1980, held both the drivers negligent A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of death of Vijay Singh and Rs. 4500/- for the injuries sustained by Laxman Singh. While the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has filed the two appeals claiming dismissal of the claim petitions, the claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation. As both the cases arise out of the same accident, although separate awards have been made, they are disposed of by a common order. 3. A faint attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants before us to show that finding of the Tribunal that the bus driver was negligent and that the driver of the motor cycle also was contributory negligent is erroneous and pressed for a finding that the accident took place only on account of the sole negligence of the motor cycle driver. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. Evidence of claimants' witnesses Basant Kumar (P.W.2) and Vijay Kumar (P.W.3) do establish the negligence of the bus driver in driving the vehicle. The bus driver, Jagdish Prasad has also been examined by the appellants. He tried to impress through his deposition that he stopped the bus and that the motor cycle dashed against it. His deposition indicates that if he had slowed down the bus earlier, the accident could have been avoided. Jagdish Kumar's version has not been corroborated by any of the independent witness. He tried to impress through his deposition that he stopped the bus and that the motor cycle dashed against it. His deposition indicates that if he had slowed down the bus earlier, the accident could have been avoided. Jagdish Kumar's version has not been corroborated by any of the independent witness. At the same time, three persons were on the motor cycle. The motor cyclist also could have avoided the accident had he been a little more careful. The Tribunal has, therefore, held rightly that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the bus and the driver of the motor cycle also contributed to the negligence which resulted the accident. The appellants have been, therefore, rightly held liable to pay compensation. 4. Turning now to the quantum of compensation awarded, what we find is that Laxman Singh sustained only one such injury for which compensation could be awarded. According to him, he sustained fracture to his alna. The gravity of that fracture could not be established for want of deposition of Dr. Mukherjee who is said to have reduced the fracture and treated Laxman Singh. At the same time, the claims tribunal did not notice any permanent disability or infirmity resulting from that injury. No loss of business also could be established. However, for his treatment, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. All the same, the tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as reasonable compensation for the sufferings. Because the tribunal held both the drivers to be guilty of negligence, this loss have been reduced to half. In our opinion, in thus assessing the compensation at Rs. 4,500/- payable to Laxman Singh for that injury, the tribunal committed no error nor it can be said to have applied any principle incorrectly to call for any interference with that assessment. 5. Coming now to the compensation for the death of Vijay Singh, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is on the lower side. Vijay Singh was quite a young man and looked after his cultivation. It cannot be said that he contributed nothing towards income of his family. It is true that the claimants could not produce precise evidence as to Vijay Singh's contribution to the family. 10,000/- is on the lower side. Vijay Singh was quite a young man and looked after his cultivation. It cannot be said that he contributed nothing towards income of his family. It is true that the claimants could not produce precise evidence as to Vijay Singh's contribution to the family. But as in all cases for assessment of the compensation, so also in the present case, some quess work has to be done, and we feel, under the circumstances of the case and looking to the status of the deceased, that this compensation must be enhanced. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 40.000/- should be assessed as the just amount of compensation. Thus Calculated, the amount of compensation to be awarded should be enhanced by Rs. 10.000/-. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 1981 and the cross-objection filed therein are dismissed. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1981 is also dismissed, but the cross-obection filed therein is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20.000/-. In both the appeals, the partice shall bear their own costs.