JUDGMENT 1. - These five appeals arise out of a single award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh, dated 29-7-1991. 2. The appellant R.S.R.T.C. owns a bus which met an accident in which three persons died, namely Shri R. N. Biswas, Shri Anjan Kumar and Smt. Purnima Biswas. 3. According to the appellants these passengers were travelling by a delux bus owned by the appellant R.S.R.T.C. The authorised driver of this bus was Shri Kailash Chandra, but at the time of incident, it was being driven by Shri Kanhaiyalal, an unauthorised driver, therefore, the appellants cannot be held liable. 4. Counsel for the respondents have urged that Kanhaiyalal may not be in the regular employment of the appellants, but he was driving the bus on the authority of Shri Kanhaiyalal. Therefore, it was on the authority of the agent of the appellants. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants can claim immunity from its liability. He has placed reliance on a judgment given in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, reported in 1996 (6) JT (SC) 728. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on Salmonds Law of Torts (Twentieth Edn.) at page 458, wherein it has been said:- "On the other hand it has been held that a servant who is authorised to drive a motor vehicle, and who permits an unauthorised person to drive it in his place, may yet be acting within the scope of his employment. The act of permitting another to drive may be a mode, alibeit an improper one, of doing the authorised work. The master may even be responsible if the servant impliedly, and not expressly, permits an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle, as where he leaves it unattended in such a manner that it is reasonably fore seable that the third party will attempt to drive it, at least if the driver retains notional control of the vehicle." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further placed reliance on Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edn., Vol. 16, paragraph 739, wherein it has been said:- "Where the act which the employee is expressly authorised to do is lawful, the employer is nevertheless responsible for the manner in which the employee executes his authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further placed reliance on Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edn., Vol. 16, paragraph 739, wherein it has been said:- "Where the act which the employee is expressly authorised to do is lawful, the employer is nevertheless responsible for the manner in which the employee executes his authority. If therefore, the employee does the act in such a manner as to occasion injury to a third person, the employer cannot escape liability on the ground that he did not actually authorise the particular manner in which the act was done, or even on the ground that the employee was acting on his own behalf and not on that of his employer." 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the liability of a driver, who drives on the authority of the authorised person by the owner and has categorically held that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident, had the authority to drive the vehicle as given by the authorised driver of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the owner is vicariously liable for the acts of its agents. In view of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 deserves to be affirmed and the same is therefore, affirmed. 7. Now, I come to the question as to what compensation should be awarded. 8. Counsel for the appellants has challenged the award passed in favour of the respondents for death of Shri R. N. Biswas, who was the father in law and grand father of Baby Upasana. It has been alleged by the appellants that Mr. R. N. Biswas was of the age of 70 years at the time of death. The old man cannot be expected to support the family, and therefore, on his earnings there cannot be any dependency. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that Shri R. N. Biswas was a partner in a commercial firm, and had a definite income and while being in age, he still had regular source of income and that income was utilised in the family, because the family was a joint one, and therefore, the award passed cannot be disturbed. 10. Though it is true that Mr. 10. Though it is true that Mr. R. N. Biswas was an aged person, but still he was involved in a positive business, and it cannot be said that he had no income and that income was not being utilised for the family. 11. Apart from the financial support from the old man, it can also be not said that his love and affection was of no value to the family. Baby Upasana would definitely miss her grand father, who would be a great play thing for her while her father would be busy in banking industry, and therefore, death of Shri R. N. Biswas has a great dent on the childhood of Bady Upasana. 12. But nonetheless, the award as made by the Tribunal is on the excessive side and I would consider it appropriate that the same be reduced and the same is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. This reduction is made keeping in view, the age and availability of the assistance in future. 13. Now, I take up the appeal which relates to the award passed in relation to the death of Shri Anjan Kumar. Shri Anjan Kumar was 34 years of age when he died. He was an officer in the Bank and he had a very bright future prospects. Suitable compensation deserves to be granted in relation to his death to the family. But, the tribunal had held that he had monthly income of Rs. 5450/-. This is not correct. The basis of this finding is a certificate of the Bank which has taken note of future contingencies. What has been established is that at the time of accident, he used to earn Rs. 3417/-, and out of this amount if one third is deducted, then the dependency of the family comes out to be Rs. 2278.00 per month and Rs. 27,336/- yearly. If the multiplier of 18 is given out, then the amount comes around Rs. 4,90,000/-. This amount can be granted for financial dependency and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- can be added for the loss of merital relationship and love and affection etc. to a young widow. This amount comes to Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,00,000/- which is one of the higher side and the same is reduced to Rs. 5,50,000/-. 14. This amount can be granted for financial dependency and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- can be added for the loss of merital relationship and love and affection etc. to a young widow. This amount comes to Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,00,000/- which is one of the higher side and the same is reduced to Rs. 5,50,000/-. 14. Now, I take up the appeal which relates to the Award passed for in favour of Manjari Biswas herself. She sustained injuries. One of these injuries is grievous and five others are simple injuries. 15. In an accident of the present magnitude, which the respondents in this appeal has suffered, no amount of sympathy can make up the deficiency, but yet the Motor Accidents Claims are not for the distribution of charity. For sufferings, grievous injury, its treatment and expenses incurred by her. in this claim, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be appropriate. The Tribunal has awarded the sum excessively and the same is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. 16. Now, I take up the appeal which relates to the award in relation to the death of Smt. Purnima. Smt. Purnima was an old lady. She was not an earning member. She had no other way to support the family, then to bring up a minor grand daughter and for her death only loss of love and affection can be awarded on that account Rs. 10,000/- are awarded. 17. Now, I take up the case of compensation to the injury to Baby Upasana. She had a swelling resulted from the accident. On account of that swelling, she might not have suffered as much as she had suffered otherwise on account of the death of her father and grand parents, but, nevertheless, she has sustained in the accident and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which is on the higher side. The same is therefore, reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. 18. In all the five appeals, the amount has been reduced and the total amount comes out to be Rs. 7,15,000/-. The award would be paid after making adjustments of the earlier payments. 19. While parting with the appeals, it has become necessary to make a mention that during the courtse of arguments, counsel for the claimants submitted that he has not been able to establish contact with their clients. 7,15,000/-. The award would be paid after making adjustments of the earlier payments. 19. While parting with the appeals, it has become necessary to make a mention that during the courtse of arguments, counsel for the claimants submitted that he has not been able to establish contact with their clients. It has also been observed that at one stage the claimants wanted to settle the claim at a very meagre sum through their power of attorney, These factors indicate that after the death of the husband and parents in laws, Smt. Manjari Biswas might not be in a shape to handle her case. By this time Baby Upasana might have attained an age of discretion. Payment of the award, which is to be made to the claimants be made only after making sure that they alone become the real beneficiaries of the Award and no third party takes advantages of their situation. Therefore, it is directed that the Tribunal would assume the role of a guardian and get the entire award money deposited in a Fixed Deposit with a Scheduled Bank, immediately after the realising the money from the appellants and clubbing it with the earlier deposits, made by the appellants along with interest @ 12% as awarded by the Tribunal. This fixed deposit should be in the joint name of Ms. Upasana and Smt. Manjari Biswas. This fixed deposit should be en-cashed only after the Tribunal is satisfied that the interest of the claimants have been fully protected. The Tribunal may also consider the long term deposit of the amount as the interest will be sufficient to meet the day to day need. Some reasonable amount may be released for immediate requirement. Both the claimants will share the award equally. 20. In case Smt. Manjari Biswas has married after the death of her husband and before this decision, then she would be only entitled to 25% of the Award and 75% of the Award would be in favour of the daughter Upasana. The Tribunal will also ensure that the Award in favour of Upasana is not pilfredged on any account and her future is provided for by this Award. 21. With these observations, the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above.Appeals partly allowed. *******