CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THESE 2 appeals are disposed of by the combona fidemon order as they are directed against the combona fidemon Judgment rendered in M. V. C. Nos. 243 and 244 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore. ( 2 ) FIRST appeal is directed against the Judg bona fidement in M. V. C. No. 243/86 in which onehanumanthappa was the claimant. In the other case M. V. C. No. 244/86 petitioner was the dependbona fideent i. e. , wife of deceased Jayaram. Hanumanthapbona fidepa suffered injuries and Jayaram died in an accident which took place when a lorry owned by the appellant - Southern Railways, bearing registration No. MYA 4789, dashed against them near Basettihalli spinning mills at Doddaballapura. The lorry which bore Registration no. MYA 4789 was undisputedly owned by the appellant-Southern Railways. The injured hanumanthappa was an agricultural labourer or a coolie while the deceased Jayaram was an agriculturist and it was claimed by the widow that her husband was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by milk vending and Rs. 30,000/- per annum from agriculture. It was pleaded by both the claimants that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry owned by the Southern Railbona fideways. ( 3 ) THE claims were resisted by the appelbona fidelant-Southern Railways denying all averments inthe claim petitions. On such pleadings 3 issues were framed, they are as follows:"1) Does the petitioner prove that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry? 2) Does the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due to the accident? 3) To what compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents?" ( 4 ) ON the evidence of P. W. 1, injured Hanumanthappa, the Court came to the conclusion that the rash and negligence was on account of the driver of the lorry owned by the appellant. Even the mahazar drawn at the spot shows that the lorry was standing on the tarred portion of the rightside of the road. Therefore the conclusion that it was the lorry driver who was at fault is irresistable on account of the fact that the lorry was found on the wrong side of the road. Therefore issue No. 1 was correctly answered in the affirmative. Therefore the conclusion that it was the lorry driver who was at fault is irresistable on account of the fact that the lorry was found on the wrong side of the road. Therefore issue No. 1 was correctly answered in the affirmative. ( 5 ) HANUMANTHAPPA claimed that he was seriously injured and suffered fracture in his leg and other injuries. P. W. 2 - the doctor testified that there was abnormal loss of mobility of right thigh and there was compound fracture of both bones of right leg. He produced the ex-rays in that behalf as Exhibits P-51 and 52. He spoke about the prolonged treatment and the progress and re-admission of Hanumanthappa on 12-11-1987. Having regard to the long duration of the treatment and the nature of the serious injury, the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering to Hanumanthappa. ( 6 ) SO far as second claimant in the other case was concerned it came to the conclusion that the income was exaggerated by P. W. 4 - the widow of the deceased Jayaram. The Tribunal however came to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 600/- per mensum and arrived at the figure rs. 400/- as the monthly contribution he would have paid towards the maintenance of the family, i. e. his wife. In the result following the decision of this Court in H. T. Bhandary v Muniyamma, ilr 1985 (2) Karnataka 2337, he chose the multiplier at 12 having regard to the age of Jayaram and awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/ -. She has been awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and another Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. But her claim in regard to the expenses towards obsequies at Rs. 3,500/- has been awarded as against the claim of Rs. 15,000/ -. She failed to claim in regard to the damages to the motorcycle. Therefore nothing was awarded. But the claimant has been awarded Rs. 500/- towards purchase of medicines while the deceased was in the hospital. In all Rs. 71,600/- less Rs. 15,000/- awarded as interim compensation has been given to the widow of Jayaram. ( 7 ) WE do not find any infirmity in there asoning of the tribunal below. It has done no more than follow the decision of this Court. 500/- towards purchase of medicines while the deceased was in the hospital. In all Rs. 71,600/- less Rs. 15,000/- awarded as interim compensation has been given to the widow of Jayaram. ( 7 ) WE do not find any infirmity in there asoning of the tribunal below. It has done no more than follow the decision of this Court. Infact, but for the decision of this Court, the claimant in the second case - the widow would have been entitled to a far higher compensation and to that extent the appellant should consider itself lucky. We find no merit in these appeals and we reject them. Appeals rejected. --- *** --- .