JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compen sation is directed against the Award dated 9.3.1992 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 95,156/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 24.9.1991, i.e., the date on which the claimants closed their evidence. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants in challenging the Award is that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded the compensation much on the lower side. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that though the learned Judge of the Tribunal determined the dependency at Rs. 600/- per month but arbitrarily fixed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation as the deceased, at the time of his death, was aged about 30 years only. It has, also, been contended that on another count, also, the compensation has been awarded much on the lower side. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that it was not on account of any rash or negligent driving of Nisan Lift No. RSN 8553 that the accident took place but actually the deceased lost his balance and struck against the lift. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the higher side. Learned counsel for the insurance company has raised an additional ground, also, that the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the extent of 1,50,000/-, i.e., the statutory liability. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. From the evidence of PW 3 Jai Prakash Soni - an employee in the Municipal Council - it is clear that the Date of Birth of deceased Gulab entered in the Record of the Municipal Council, is 11.6.1954 and at the relevant time he was getting Rs. 899/- per month as saiary and he would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2014. 5. PW 1 Smt. Nathki has, also, stated that the age of her husband Gulab, at the relevant time was 33 years and he was getting Rs. 1,100/- per month as salary. 6. 899/- per month as saiary and he would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2014. 5. PW 1 Smt. Nathki has, also, stated that the age of her husband Gulab, at the relevant time was 33 years and he was getting Rs. 1,100/- per month as salary. 6. From the evidence of these two witnesses it has been established that deceased Gulab was aged about 33 years and his pay, at the relevant time, was Rs. 899/- per month. He must be spending ⅓ of his income on himself and, thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 600/- per month. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly determined the dependency of the claimants to the extent of Rs. 600/-per month but he arbitrarily awarded a sum of Rs. 75;000/- as compensation. If the compensation is determined in view of the. judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in . General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thoms & Anr., 1994 ACJ 1 , then the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,72,800/- (600 x 2 x 12 x 12). The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in awarding the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- only, on account of the loss of.dependency. The amount on this count deserves 9 be enhanced from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,72,800/-. 7. The next question which requires consideration is : whether the amount of Rs. 20,156/- awmrded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 10,000/-on account of the loss of consortium to claimant Smt. Nathki, Rs. 10,000/- to the three children of the deceased on account of loss of the love and affection suffered by them due to untimely death of their father and Rs. 156/- towards medical expenses incurred on the deceased, has rightly been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal ? Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, these amounts have rightly been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and the con-tpensation awarded on these counts do not require any interference. 8. The learned Judge of the Tribunatwas, also, justified in rejecting the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by the deceased. This claim has rightly been disallowed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 9. 8. The learned Judge of the Tribunatwas, also, justified in rejecting the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and physical pain suffered by the deceased. This claim has rightly been disallowed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 95,156/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,92,956/-. All the respondents are jointly and severaly liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants but the liability of the insurance company is limited only to the extent of the statutory liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realisation. However, out of this amount, a deduction of Rs. 15,000/- already paid to the claimants under 'no fault liability' is to be made. The liability with respect to the remaining amount of the award will be that of the respondents No. 1 & 2.Appeal Allowed. *******