JUDGMENT 1. - These three claimant's appeals for enhancement of the amount of compensation arise out of the Award dated 5.8.88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 51,500/- in Hira Bhai & Ors. v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 7 of 1984 , Rs. 5,500/- in Poonja Bhai v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 5 of 1984 and Rs. 2,500/- in Soma Bhai v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 6 of 1984 . The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal was ordered to carry interest @ 12% per annum. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, also, awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as expenses in each claim petition. 2. Deceased Jadav Ben and injured Poonja Bhai and Soma Bhai, along with other passengers, were travelling in bus No. GTK 4052. They left Ahmedabad on 25.5.80 for Mount Abu. This bus met with an accident on 26.5.80 with the goods train at railway crossing at Abu Road. In this accident Jadav Ben died while Poonja Bhai and Soma Bhai received injuries. Hira Bhai-the husband of deceased Jadav Ben and the sons and daughters of Jadav Ben filed Claim Petition No. 7 of 1984 for the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,11,000/-; Poonja Bhai filed Claim Petition No. 5 of 1984 for compensation amounting to Rs. 62,225/- and Soma Bhai filed Claim Petition No. 6 of 1984 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 22,100/-, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi. These claim petitions were contested by the defendants on the ground that it was not on account of any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus that the accident took place but the accident took place on account of sudden failure of the brakes of the bus, on account of which the bus, after breaking the railway crossing gate, dashed against the goods train. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined AW 1 Hira Bhai, AW 2 Poonja Bhai and AW 3 Soma Bhai. The defendants did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, held the driver of the bus responsible for the accident as he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined AW 1 Hira Bhai, AW 2 Poonja Bhai and AW 3 Soma Bhai. The defendants did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, held the driver of the bus responsible for the accident as he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, also, awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 51,500/- to claimants Hira Bhai & Ors., Rs. 5,500/- to claimant Poonja Bhai and Rs. 2,500/- to claimant Soma Bhai. It is against this award that the claimants have filed these appeals. 4. Neither the insurance company nor the owner of the bus has filed any appeal nor they filed any cross-objection. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is most inadequate and the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the remaining claim of the claimants though the same stands proved from the evidence produced on record. Learned counsel for the owner of the bus as well as the insurance company, on the other hand, have submitted that the claimants have already been awarded the compensation on the higher side by the Tribunal and the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any interference. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the 'insurance company that the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 5,000/ per passenger. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The first question which requires consideration is : who was responsible for the accident : whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving [the busby its driver or the accident took place due to sudden failure of the brakes of he bus ? The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and his responsibility to the accident has not been challenged by the respondents by way of filing any appeal or cross-objection. Even otherwise, from the evidence produced by the claimants, it stands established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Even otherwise, from the evidence produced by the claimants, it stands established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. AW 2 Poonja Bhai and AW 3 Soma Bhai are the two eye witnesses who were travelling in the same bus. They, also, received injuries the accident. Their evidence stands un-rebutted and they have stood the cross-ex nation. From their evidence it is established that it was only on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver that the accident took place, which resulted in the death of Jadav Ben and injuries to the other passengers. The learned Judge of the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in deciding this issue against the defendants. 8. The next question which requires consideration, is : whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is adequate or it is on the lower side ? Claimants Hira Bhai & Ors., in claim petition No. 7 of 1984, claimed Rs. 36,000/- as loss income and the dependency, Rs. 20,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs. 36,000/- as loss love and affection to five children, Rs. 4,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- as loss of property and Rs. 2,000/- as the taxi charges. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,000/-, i.e., the full amount claimed by the claimants as the loss of pendency. So far as the loss of consortium is concerned, the claimant claimed a sum Rs. 20,000/-.but the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,500/- as the loss of consortium. The deceased, at the time of her death, was 39 years of age. Her husband, the relevant time, was, also, of the same age. The amount awarded by the learned judge of the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is, therefore, on the lower side, which requires enhancement and claimant Hira Bhai is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as the loss of consortium. 9. The next item which requires consideration is the amount of compensation relating to loss of love and affection of the mother to the sons and the daughters. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to each of the children which, appears to be on the lower side. 10,000/- as the loss of consortium. 9. The next item which requires consideration is the amount of compensation relating to loss of love and affection of the mother to the sons and the daughters. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to each of the children which, appears to be on the lower side. This amount requires enhancement and each of children is awarded the compensation towards love and affection to the tune of Rs. /- 3000 each. The compensation awarded on this count is enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 15,000/-, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- to each of the children. 10. The next amount which requires consideration is regarding the funeral expense The claimants have claimed Rs. 4,000/- on this count and the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed no amount on this count. Looking to the facts and circumstances of case, I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on count, also. 11. So far as loss of property and the conveyance charges are concerned, the claimants are not entitled for any amount towards the loss of the property. But so far as taxi-charges is concerned, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has already awarded a of Rs. 500/- and that sum has rightly been awarded to the claimants by the learned judge of the Tribunal and the finding of the Tribunal, on this count, does not require any interference. 12. Thus, claimants Hira Bhai & Ors. are entitled in all a sum of Rs. 63,500/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation. 13. In Poonja Bhai v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 5 of 1984 (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 108 of 1989) claimant Poonja Bhai claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- but the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- were awarded on account of loss of income for three months, Rs. 2,000/- were awarded towards medical expenses and Rs. 500/- were allowed as taxi charges. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, has considered the evidence produced by the claimant in the right perspective. The claimant has been able to prove only the claim of Rs. 5,500/-, which has been rightly awarded to him by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 500/- were allowed as taxi charges. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, has considered the evidence produced by the claimant in the right perspective. The claimant has been able to prove only the claim of Rs. 5,500/-, which has been rightly awarded to him by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The remaining claim has not been proved by the claimant. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper and the finding arrived at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any interference and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any enhancement. 14. In Soma Bhai v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 6 of 1984 (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 1989) claimant Soma Bhai claimed a sum of Rs. 22,100/- but the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,600/- for the loss of two months' income, Rs. 400/- for medical expenses and Rs. 500/- for taxi charges. The remaining claim could not be proved by the claimant by cogent evidence. There is only the statement of claimant Soma Bhai to prove his claim and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence produced by him and rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,500/-. The amount awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any enhancement. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while awarding this amount of compensation, has given cogent reasons for rejecting the remaining claim of the claimant. The finding arrived at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any interference. 15. In the result, Hira Bhai & Ors. v. Surjeet Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 110 of 1989 is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal amounting Rs. 51,500/- is enhanced to Rs. 63,500/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation. The appeals filed by Poonja Bhai an Soma Bhai have got no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******