JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated May 8, 1985 by which it has partly allowed the claim petitions No. 24 and 29 of 1983. The claim petition No. 24 has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Chiman Lal and the claim petition No. 29/83 has been filed by the injured Kana Ram. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On February 20, 1982, the deceased Chiman Lal was going on his auto No. RNM 7129 from High Court Colony to PWTD Office, Jodhpur. The injured Kana Ram was sitting behind him on the pillion. He was going on the correct side of the road, while he was passing in front of the Senapati Bhawan, Ratanada, Jodhpur, truck No. RJQ 2311 came with excessive speed and dashed against the auto from its back-side. As a result thereof, Chiman Lal and Kana Ram were thrown away from the auto at a great distance and received several serious injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Jodhpur. Chiman Lal succumbed to his injuries. At the time of the accident, the truck was being driven carelessly and negligently by its driver Bhanwar Lal (respondent No. 1) and was owned by Chandra Shekhar (respondent No. 2). The legal representatives of the deceased Chiman Lal filed claim petition No. 24/83 claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- and Kana Ram filed claim petition No. 29/83 claiming Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. In their joint reply, the driver and owner admitted that the said truck No. RJQ 2311 was owned by Chandra Shekhar and was being driven by Bhanwar La at the time of the accident and the accident occurred. It has further been averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver Chiman Lal. In reply, the National Insurance Company admitted that the said truck No. RJQ 2311 was insured with it at the time of the accident and the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the deceased Chiman Lal and the truck driver Bhanwar Lal. 3. In reply, the National Insurance Company admitted that the said truck No. RJQ 2311 was insured with it at the time of the accident and the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the deceased Chiman Lal and the truck driver Bhanwar Lal. 3. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Bhanwar Lal, the auto driver Chiman Lal and pillion-rider Kana Ram received serious.injuries and subsequently Chiman Lal died, and the claimants of both the claim petitions are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/.- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Chiman Lal despite holding that at the time of the death he was 32 years of age and he was helping his father in his milk business and agriculture. He further contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the defect in the right leg of the injured Kana Ram appeared on account of his own fault. He also contended that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in not awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the judgment of the Tribunal. 6. The only question in these appeals is about the quantum of compensation. Neither any cross-objections nor any cross-appeal has been filed by any respondent. 7. Bhappa Ram P.W.-1 has deposed that the deceased Chiman Lal was doing milk business and he was keeping 30-35 cattle. Mima P.W.-5, mother of the deceased, has deposed that Chiman Lal was maintaining cattle and doing milk business, he left behind two daughters, one son and his widow besides herself as his legal representatives, his monthly income was Rs. 1,000/- and the family was wholly dependent upon him. In her cross-examination, she disclosed the 30-35 cattle were being maintained by the deceased his second son was also doing the same business and selling milk and he resides with her. There is no other evidence on record on this point. These witnesses have also not been cross-examined on this aspect of the case. In her cross-examination, she disclosed the 30-35 cattle were being maintained by the deceased his second son was also doing the same business and selling milk and he resides with her. There is no other evidence on record on this point. These witnesses have also not been cross-examined on this aspect of the case. It is thus well-proved that the income of the family was Rs. 1,000/- from selling milk and this business of milk was being carried on by the deceased along with his brother. It can, therefore, be safely assumed that the income of the deceased Chiman Lai was Rs. 500/- per month. It is not disputed that the age of the deceased Chiman Lal at the time of his death was 32 years. Considering his monthly income to be Rs. 500/-and deducting ⅓rd towards his personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs. 333/- per month Le., Rs. 4,000/- per annum. According to the decision given in G.M., K.S.R.T.C., Trivendum v. Mrs. Sushma Thomas, [ AIR 1994 S.C. 1631 ] multiple to be maximum extent of 16 can be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the future rise in income, the claimants of the claim petition No. 24 of 1983 are entitled to get Rs. 333 x 12 x 16 Le., Rs. 63,936/- or say Rs. 64,000/- + Rs. 16,000/- (for increase in future income) = Rs. 80,000/-. The claimant No. 1 Shanta is also entitled to get Rs.. 5,000/- as consortium being widow of the deceased Chiman Lal. Thus the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 85,000. 8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- only to the injured Kana Ram holding that the permanent disability appearing in his leg was not the result of the accident and it was due to his own fault in leaving the hospital. This finding of the Tribunal is not correct. The injured Kana Ram has categorically stated on oath that the doctor in the hospital advised him not to leave the hospital as second operation was to be done. He has further deposed that he left the hospital after remaining there for one month as he got tired started treatment of a bone-setter. There was no improvement despite his treatment for six months and, thereafter, he again got himself admitted in the hospital. He has further deposed that he left the hospital after remaining there for one month as he got tired started treatment of a bone-setter. There was no improvement despite his treatment for six months and, thereafter, he again got himself admitted in the hospital. He has further deposed that his second operation was done in September and still he has plaster on his leg. Kana Ram says that due to injuries received in the accident he was unable to maintain his cattle and carry on the business of selling milk, he has to keep Birma Gurjar on monthly salary of Rs. 300/-and he has to spend Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- in his treatment and the cash-memos are Ex.-5 to 24. Dr. Navin Mathur P.W.-6 has deposed that injured Kana Ram was under his treatment in the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, as a result of the injuries received in the accident his right leg became shorter by one inch and also thin and it cannot take turn from the knee-joint as a result thereof. Kana Ram has deposed that his income from the milk-business was Rs. 2,000/- per month. There is neither any cross-examination nor any evidence in rebuttal on this aspect of the case. As such the injured Kana Ram is entitled to get compensation under following heads: (i) General damages Rs. 15,000/- (ii) Treatment Rs. 8,000/- (iii) Loss of business Rs. 27,000/- As such the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the injured Kana Ram deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 50,000. 9. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent. It deserves to be enhanced to 12 per cent per annum. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed with costs. The amounts of compensation payable to the claimants of the claim petition No. 24/83 is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 85,000/- and the amount payable to claimant Kana Ram (injured) in claim petition No. 29/83 is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 50,000/. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amounts of compensation in both the claim petitions. They are further liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petitionsAppeal partly allowed. *******