JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals, filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation arise out of the Award dated 29.5.1989 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 68,200/- as compensation in Claim Petition No. 19 of 1984 (Jethmal v. Jai Singh & Anr.) , Rs. 35,000/- in Claim Petition No. 11 of 1984 (Smt. Pani Devi & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Anr.) , and Rs. 50,000/- in Claim Petition No. 18 of 1984 (Smt. Soni Devi & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Anr.) . As all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment/award and relate to the same accident, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts of the case are that on 10.1. 1984, injured Jethmal and deceased Girdhari Lal and Hasti Mal, along with other passengers, were travelling in Bus No. RRM 870 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was going from Jalore to Nakodaji. The bus dashed against Jodhpur-Ahmedabad-Bhilri Mail at Balwara Railway Crossing. Several persons died at the spot in the accident while some passengers received grievous and simple injuries. The legal representatives and dependents of the deceased as well as the injured persons filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore, for the award of compensation. Injured Jeth Mal filed the Claim petition for the award of Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation; the legal representatives and dependents of deceased Girdhari Lal, viz., Smt. Pani Devi and others filed the claim petition for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- while the legal representatives and dependents of deceased Hasti Mal, viz. Smt. Soni Devi and others have filed the claim petition for the award of Rs. 4,62,000/- as compensation. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, held Jai Singh-the driver of the bus- responsible for the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal further observed that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Jai Singh that the accident took place and if he would have taken some care and would have driven the bus at a moderate speed with care and caution then the accident would not have occurred. The learned Judge of the Tribunal decreed part of the claims filed by the claimants including the claims filed by the present claimant-appellants. No appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award but the claimants have filed the present appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the claimants, the income of the deceased and the injured at the time of the accident and the other relevant factors and awarded the compensation which is much on the lower side. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and submitted that while awarding the compensation, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has taken into account the income of deceased Hasti Mal and Girdhari Lal as well as that of the injured-claimant Jeth Mal properly and rightly awarded the compensation. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on the lower side, rather it is on the higher side. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence, has rightly held Jai Singh-the driver of the Bus No. RRM 870-responsible for the accident. Though this finding has not been challenged by the respondent R.S.R.T.C. or by driver Jai Singh but even otherwise from the evidence available on record it has been established that it was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Jai Singh that the accident took place. From the statement of PW 5 Mahendra Kumar and PW 6 Ashok Kumar and the other eye-witnesses, who were travelling in the bus, it has been proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Jai Singh which was the cause of the accident and which resulted in the death of many passengers. The evidence of DW 1 Jai Singh-the driver of the Bus and DW 2 Puran Prakash do not inspire confidence and they were rightly disbelieved by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. From the evidence available on record it has been established that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Jai Singh. 6. The next question which requires consideration in the present case is : whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement, or in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is just and proper ? For determining the adequacy of the compensation it would be better to deal the cases of all the appellant- claimants separately:- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 195 of 1989 ( Jeth Mal v. Jai Singh & Anr., Claim Petition No. 19 of 1984 ):- 7. Claimant Jeth Mal, in the claim petition, claimed a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation. Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of income on account of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant Rs. 5,000/- for medicines, Rs. 8,000/- for doctor's fees, Rs. 5,000/- for nourishing food and Rs. 7,000/- towards the amount spent on the attendants and in going and coming for treatment and Rs. 50,000/-were claimed on account of physical pain, mental agony and sufferings by the injured. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,200/- on account of permanent disability, Rs. 5,000/- for medicines and Rs. 8,000/- for doctor's fee and dismissed the remaining part of the claim. 8. The claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as PW 1 and produce in evidence PW 2 Dhan Raj and PW 3 Dr. Bharat Jayanti Lal Patel. The non-claimants did not produce any evidence in their defence. 9. PW 1 Jeth Mal has stated that on 10.1.1984 he was travelling in the bus which was being driven by its driver Jai Singh. The bus met with an accident, in which his right hand and both the legs were fractured. He was taken to Jalore Hospital where he was medically treated. He feels pain in walking. On 16.1.1984 he was taken to Ahmedabad for medical treatment and he was treated at Dinu Bhai Patel Nursing Home, Ahmedabad. The bus met with an accident, in which his right hand and both the legs were fractured. He was taken to Jalore Hospital where he was medically treated. He feels pain in walking. On 16.1.1984 he was taken to Ahmedabad for medical treatment and he was treated at Dinu Bhai Patel Nursing Home, Ahmedabad. He incurred a permanent disability of 58%. He got his. treatment and purchased medicines and the bills of the medicines are Ex. 2 to Ex. 180. He was operated several times. While he was under the medical treatment at Ahmedabad, five-six persons remained with him and Rs. 15,000/- were spent on the attendants. A sum of Rs. 40/- per day was incurred for his nourishing food and he paid Rs. 70/- per day for the room in which he stayed during the treatment. At the relevant time he was engaged in the business of bangles. 10. PW 2 Dhan Raj has stated that he knows Jeth Mal who was injured in the accident and, now, he cannot walk without a stick and, therefore, he cannot properly look-after his business. 11. PW 3 Dr. Bharat Jayanti Lal Patel has stated that he knows Jeth Mal, whom he medically treated in the month of January, 1984. He was admitted in the hospital on 16.1.1984 and remained in his Nursing Home for about five months. Except for his fee, his expenses on the medicines were to the tune of Rs. 250/- per day. He has, also, proved Ex. 36, Ex. 45 and various other exhibits. He has, also, stated that Jeth Mal was operated six time but all these operation were minor. Jeth Mal feels some difficulty in walking and sitting and on account of this accident he incurred the permanent disability of 58%. 12. From the evidence of these three witnesses it has, therefore, been established that the claimant suffered permanent disability of 58%. The learned Judge of the Tribunal considered the loss of income to the claimant at Rs. 200/- per month on account of this permanent disability and applied the multiplier of 23 and determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 65,200/-. The amount has been determined by the learned Judge of the Tribunal by properly appreciating the evidence available on record and after taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case. 200/- per month on account of this permanent disability and applied the multiplier of 23 and determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 65,200/-. The amount has been determined by the learned Judge of the Tribunal by properly appreciating the evidence available on record and after taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. The compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal amounting to Rs. 55,200/- on account of the permanent disability, therefore, does not require any interference. 13. The claimant claimed Rs. 5,000/- on account of the expenses on medicines and Rs. 8,000/- towards doctor's fee. Though the bills of Rs. 51,848/- have been placed on record but as the claim was made only to the extent of Rs. 13,000/-, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the full claim amount of Rs. 13,000/- to the claimant. Since the claim petition filed on this count was only for Rs. 13,000/-, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding this much of the amount on these counts. The claimant had the option to give-up his claim and if he filed the claim petition for the award of particular amount towards medical expenses and doctor's fee then there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in awarding the compensation as claimed by the claimant. The order passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, on these counts, therefore, does not require any interference. 14. The next amount which has been claimed by the claimant is Rs. 5,000/- for nourishing food and Rs. 7,000/- spent upon the attendants. The claimant has specifically stated before the Tribunal that Rs. 40/- per day were spent on nourishing food and Rs. 70/- per day were paid as the rent of the room in which he stayed during his treatment. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in disallowing this amount of Rs. 12,000/- which the claimant must have incurred during his stay at Ahmedabad for medical treatment. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on these counts. 15. The next amount which has been claimed by the claimant is Rs. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in disallowing this amount of Rs. 12,000/- which the claimant must have incurred during his stay at Ahmedabad for medical treatment. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on these counts. 15. The next amount which has been claimed by the claimant is Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical pain suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimant remained in the hospital for about four/five months for his treatment. He was operated upon several times. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant on account of mental agony and physical pain and sufferings by the claimant on account of the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in disallowing this claim. He has even not considered this claim of the claimant. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on these counts. The claimant in all is therefore entitled for Rs. 90,200/- as compensation.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 196 of 1989 ( Smt. Soni Devi & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Anr., Claim Petition No. 18 of 1984 ):- 16. The claimants filed the claim petition for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,62,500/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 50,000/- have been claimed on account of the fact that the dependents of the deceased ill not be able to get the valuable advice of the deceased which he used to give in the after of business, Rs. 2,000/- were claimed on account of medicines, Rs. 2,500/- were claimed for hiring the matador, Rs. 3,000/- for the fee given to the doctor, Rs. 5,000/- ere claimed towards the amount spent in staying at Ahmedabad and to meet out the expenses. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and dismissed the remaining claim of the claimants. 17. The claimants, in support of their case, examined PW 1 Nen Mal, PW 2 Pukh Raj and PW 3 Sankal Chand. PW 1 Pukh Raj has stated that deceased Hasti Mal was his father, who was aged about 49 years when he met with the accident and died. 50,000/- and dismissed the remaining claim of the claimants. 17. The claimants, in support of their case, examined PW 1 Nen Mal, PW 2 Pukh Raj and PW 3 Sankal Chand. PW 1 Pukh Raj has stated that deceased Hasti Mal was his father, who was aged about 49 years when he met with the accident and died. He was medically treated and the bills of the medicines are Ex. 2 to Ex. 25. He was taken to Ahmedabad for medical treatment and Rs. 2,500/- were spent-as the conveyance charges, Rs. 3000/- were paid to the doctor and 1,000/- were paid for other expenses. In all Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- were spent in the medicines. His father had a plastic Factory at Baroda and his annual income was Rs. 18,000/-. 18. PW 2 Pukh Raj has stated that Hasti Mal died at the age of 49 years and at that time he was having good health and his income was Rs. 20,000/- per year. 19. PW 3 Sankal Chand is the partner of the Plastic Factory at Baroda and has stated that he and Hasti Mal were the two partners in the factory and were paying income tax. In the year 1984-85 the approximate income of the factory was 49,000/- and both the partners were having equal share. The assessment order Ex. 35 for the assessment year 1984-85 has been placed on record. The firm has been assessed on the income of Rs. 35,340/-. The share of the partners in the factory was 50% each. The income of deceased Hasti Mal during the year 1984-85 was Rs. 17,668/-. Out of this amount the deceased was spending ⅛ of the income on himself and, thus, the total dependency, therefore, comes to Rs. 11,778/- per year. Taking into account the future prospects of advancement in the life and the career, before applying the multiplier, the income of the deceased multiplier by two and, thus, it comes to Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 11,778 x 2). Hasti Mal, at the time of his death, was aged about 49 years and the suitable multiplier, that can be applied in the present case, is 8. The total dependency of the claimants, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Anr., 1984 ACJ 1 comes to Rs. 1,88,448/- (Rs. The total dependency of the claimants, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Anr., 1984 ACJ 1 comes to Rs. 1,88,448/- (Rs. 11,778 x 2 x 8). 20. The next item, on which enhancement of the amount of the claim has been claimed by the claimants, is the amount spent by the claimants in the medicines. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- on this count. The claimants have placed on record the bills issued in the name of deceased Hasti Mal only to the tune of Rs. 997/- and Rs. 40/-. Even in the claim petition, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was claimed on this count and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any interference and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been rightly awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 21. The claimants have claimed Rs. 50,000/- as loss of consortium, love and affection, mental agony and physical pain. The claimants are entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium, love and affection etc. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing this claim. The claimants are entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on these counts. 22. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,48,000/-.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 197 of 1989 ( Smt. Pani Devi & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 11 of 1984 ):- 23. Claimants Pani Devi and others, who are the legal representativers and dependents of the deceased Girdhari Lal, filed the claim petition for the award of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation. Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 50,000/- were claimed on account of mental agony and physical pain, loss of consortium and love and affection. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- against the loss of dependency and Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of consortium and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. 24. The claimants, in support of their claim examined PW 1 Kanti Lal S/o deceased Girdhari Lal and PW 2 Mitha Lal. 30,000/- against the loss of dependency and Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of consortium and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. 24. The claimants, in support of their claim examined PW 1 Kanti Lal S/o deceased Girdhari Lal and PW 2 Mitha Lal. PW 1 Kanti Lal has stated that at the time of death, his father Girdhari Lal was aged about 55 years. His grand-father died at the age of 75 years and the grand-mother died at the age of 60 to 65 years. At the time of death, his pay was Rs. 1,000/- per month and the deceased used to advice the family and would have worked for another 20 years. 25. PW 2 Mitha Lal has stated that Girdhari Lal's father Shri Guman Mal died at the age of 65 to 70 years and his mother died at the age of 65 to 70 years. 26. Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the fact regarding the income of deceased Girdhari Lal except the statement of PW 1 Kanti Lal that his father Girdhari Lal was getting the pay of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Who was the employer of deceased Girdhari Lal and on what post he was working, have not come on record. The learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the income of deceased Girdhari Lal at Rs. 1,200/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the determination of the income of deceased Girdhari Lal at Rs. 1,200/- per month is reasonable in view of the statement of PW 1 Kanti Lal, which has not been controverted. Out of Rs. 1,200/- per month the deceased must be spending ⅓ of the income on himself and giving Rs. 800/- per month to the family. Taking the future prospects of advancement in the life and career in terms of money, before applying the multiplier, I think it proper to treat the income of deceased Girdhari Lal at Rs. 2,400/- per month and after deducting ⅓ of the amount spent by him on himself, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,600/-. Deceased Girdhari Lal, at the time of his death, was aged about 55 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 6 can be applied in the present case. Thus, the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,15,200/- (Rs. 9,600 x 2 x 6). 27. 1,600/-. Deceased Girdhari Lal, at the time of his death, was aged about 55 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 6 can be applied in the present case. Thus, the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,15,200/- (Rs. 9,600 x 2 x 6). 27. The next question which requires consideration is the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal as the loss of consortium : whether it is adequate or on the lower side ? Looking to the age of the deceased and the age of his widow Pani Devi, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on this count is adequate and does not require any interference. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly awarded this amount. The claimants are, therefore, entitled for the compensation, in all, of Rs. 1,20,300/-. 28. In the result, the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants are partly allowed. The Award dated 29.5.1989 passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is modified and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 195 of 1989 (Claim petition No. 19 of 1984) is enhanced from Rs. 68,200/- to Rs. 90,200/-; in S.B. Civil Misc. Petition No. 196 of 1989 (Claim Petition No. 11 of 1984) and amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 1,88,000/- and in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 197 of 1989 (Claim Petition No. 18 of 1984 the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,20,200/-. The amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******