JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation is directed against the Award dated 16-4-90 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the compensation amounting to Rs. 65,000/-and after deducting the amount of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to the claimants under 'no fault liablity' ordered for the payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 2. Claimants Smt. Manjeet Kaur the widow of deceased Darshan Singh and Gurmail Singh and Gurmeet Singh the sons of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 8,21,800/-. It was averred in the claim petition that on 13-1-86, at about 8.15a.m., deceased Darshan Singh s/o Balveer Singh was carrying the passengers in Jeep No. RRC 2235. The Jeep was proceeding from 23-Z towards Sri Ganganagar and it was being driven at a moderate speed on the-left side of the road. Bus No. RRM 9112 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Darshan Singh s/o Muktiar Singh, came from the opposite side and dashed against the jeep. Darshan Singh (the driver of the jeep) and the other passengers sitting in the jeep, received injuries. Darshan Singh (the driver of the jeep) died on account of the injuries received by him in the accident. It was further averred in the claim petition that at the time of the accident deceased Darshan Singh was getting Rs. 800/- per month and was working as the driver and was aged about 27 years. The claimant No. 1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur (widow of the deceased) was, at the time of death of her husband, was aged about 25 years and the two sons of the deceased wore minor and they were dependant upon the deceased. Rs. 3,16,000/- were .claimed as the loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of financial assistance and other privileges afforded by the deceased, Rs. 2,00 000/- were claimed on account of loss of consortium by the widow of the deceased and love and affection by the two sons of the deceased and Rs. Rs. 3,16,000/- were .claimed as the loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- were claimed on account of loss of financial assistance and other privileges afforded by the deceased, Rs. 2,00 000/- were claimed on account of loss of consortium by the widow of the deceased and love and affection by the two sons of the deceased and Rs. 5000/- were claimed towards the amount spent on the funeral and other post-death ceremonies of the deceased. 3. This claim petition was opposed by the respondents. The claimants, in support of their case, examined AW 1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur. AW 2 Sohan Singh, AW3 Ramesh Lai, AW 4 Jaisa Ram Nayak, AW 5 Amar Chand and AW 6 Dr. Rajendra Gupta. The npn-claimants, in support of their case, examined DW 1 Darshan Singh (the driver of the bus), DW 2 Kalu Ram, DW 3 Madan Lal and DW 4 Karam Chand. 4. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, came to the conclusion that both the drivers (i.e. the driver of the jeep and the driver of the bus) contributed to the accident and held both of them liable to the extent of 50% each for the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,20.000/- as the loss of dependency, Rs. 1000/- towards mental agony and physical pain suffered by the claimants, Rs. 9000/- for the loss of consortium, love and affection etc. and, thus, determined the compensation at Rs. 1,30,000/- but deducted 50% of this amount on account of 50% contributory negligence of the deceased and, thus, awarded the total compensation of Rs. 65,000/-. It is against this judgment/award dated 16-4-90 that the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side and while awarding the compensation, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not considered the evidence produced by the claimants in the right perspective and though the deceased was only 27 years of age and his widow was 25 years of age at the time of death of the deceased but the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation towards the toss of dependency only to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 10.000/- on account of loss of consortium, love and affection etc. Learned counsel for the appellants has. also, contended that the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed an error in holding deceased Darshan Singh, also, contributory negligent and liable for the accident and wrongly determined the contributory negligence of the deceased at 50%. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver deceased Darshan Singh and not on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Learned counsel for the respondents, also, contended that the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the driver of the bus also contributed 50% to the accident. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The respondents have not filed any appeal or cross-objection challenging the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. Thus, the finding of the learned Judge of the Tribunal that both the drivers, (i.e., the driver of the jeep and the driver of the bus) were contributory negligent for the accident and they were equally negligent in driving the vehicles, stands established as it has not been challenged. 8. Even otherwise, from the evidence produced by the claimants as well as by respondents, it stands established that at the time when the accident took palce, there dense fog and the visibility was very poor and still both the drivers, i.e., the driver of the jeep and the driver of the bus, did not take any due care and precautions to avoid the accident. It was expected from both the drivers to drive their vehicles with the head-lights of the vehicles on and with slow speed because the visibility was very poor but they did not take due care and precautions and as such the accident took place. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding both the drivers rash and negligent in driving their vehicles and rightly held them contributory negligent for the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding both the drivers rash and negligent in driving their vehicles and rightly held them contributory negligent for the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, also, justified in holding both the drivers negligent to the extent of 50% each. 9. The next question which requires consideration is: whether the amount of compensation determined by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is adequate or it is on the lower side and requires enhancement? AW 1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur the widow of the deceased has stated that her husband was getting Rs. 800/- per month and was, also, earning Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 1600/- per year from six Bighas of irrigated agricultural land. AW 5 Amar Chand the owner of the jeep has stated that deceased Darshan Singh was working as the driver on his jeep and he was paying Rs. 800/- per month to the deceased. There is no rebuttal to this evidence and the learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the income of deceased Darshan Singh at Rs. 800/- per month. So far as the income of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 1600/- per year from the agricultural land is concerned, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim. Even otherwise, as per the statement of AW 1 Smt. Manjeet Kaur, deceased Darshan Singh was getting Theka money from six Bighas of agricultural land. The claimants can get that income even after the death of Darshan Singh. 10. The deceased was getting Rs. 800/-,'per month as the pay for rendering the services as the driver of the jeep. There was the possibility of future enhancement in his income. Out of this amount of Rs. 800/- per month, the deceased must have spent ⅓ of the income on himself and must be paying ⅔ of this income to the family for the maintenance. Thus, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs. 12,800/-. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and, therefore, the multiplier of fourteen deserves to be applied in this case in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court given in: General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 All CJ 1 and as such the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,79,200/- (800 x 2 x ⅔ x 12 x 14). 11. The next question which requires consideration is: whether the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal to widow Smt. Manjeet Kaur as loss of consortium and to the two sons on account of loss of live and affection of their father, is adequate? Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the claimants at the time of death of the deceased, think that the amount awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on these counts is somewhat on the lower side. Claimant Smt. Manjeet Kaur is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium and the two sons are entitled for Rs. 5000/- towards loss of love and affection of their father. The claimants are, also, entitled for an amount of Rs. 2000/- spent by them in the funeral and other post-death ceremonies of the deceased. The total amount of compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 1,96,200/-. Since deceased Darshan Singh, also, contributed 50% to the accident and his contributory negligence was rightly determined at 50%, therefore, the claimants are entitled for 50% of this amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 98,100/- This amount of Rs. 98,100/- as compensation is to be distributed in the ratio of 50% to the widow of the deceased and 25% each to the two sons. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 65,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 98,100/-. The claimants will, also, be entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation.Appeal partly allowed. *******