JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 5th September, 1991 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara, in claim Case No. 121 /89 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,74,000/- to claimant-respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The appellants-non-claimants have come in appeal for quashing the aforesaid judgment and Award. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to instant appeal are that on 27-7-1989 at about 9.00 p.m. Ganpat (deceased) was going back from Banswara to Tejpur his village, after selling milk in Banswara. He was on his motor cycle. When he reached in the vicinity of Tejpur a little ahead of fly-over bridge at the river. Rajasthan Roadways Bus No. RNP 2592, being driven by Usman Sheikh (respondent No. 7), came with great speed from the opposite direction and dashed against motor cycle of Ganpat. The bus was going from Chittorgarh to Ahmedabad. As a result of collision of bus with motor cycle. Ganpat was thrown and suffered severe injuries on his head, feet and other parts of the body. He died instantaneously. Then driver of the bus Usman Sheikh after turning the bus to right direction, stopped it and ran away. 3. A report of this accident was lodged at Police Station, Sardar, Banswara by Shankar Lal and a case under Sec. 279/304A, I.P.C. was registered. During investigation, site plan was prepared. After the investigation, driver Usman Sheikh was challenged in the competent Court. 4. The claimant-respondents Smt. Galab widow of Ganpat Smt. Sundar mother of deceased Ganpat and four children of Ganpat filed claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara for compensation of Rs. 6,22,000/- contending, inter alia, that at the time of accident deceased Ganpat was about 35 years of age, he was earning from agriculture as well as from selling of milk he had 18 buffaloes whose milk he used to sell, he was earning Rs. 1000/- per month from agriculture produce and Rs. 1000/- from milk vending. Thus, his income was claimed to be Rs. 2000/- per month out of which the deceased was spending Rs. 650/- per month on himself and was contributing Rs. 1350/- towards the family. The average life span of male members in his family is 70 years and his mother is alive at the age of 60 years.The loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 5,67,000/-. 2000/- per month out of which the deceased was spending Rs. 650/- per month on himself and was contributing Rs. 1350/- towards the family. The average life span of male members in his family is 70 years and his mother is alive at the age of 60 years.The loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 5,67,000/-. For loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- were claimed. An amount of Rs. 3000/- was also claimed for repair of demaged motor cycle. 5. The Roadways as well as the driver of Bus No. RNP 2592 denied the averments made by the claimants before learned Tribunal and pleaded that the accident was not a result of negligent driving of Usman Sheikh. Instead it was pleaded that Ganpat was himself driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently. It was also pleaded by the non-claimants appellants that the amount claimed was highly exaggerated.It was specifically pleaded fhat Ganpat violated the traffic rules. It was the driver of the bus who slowed down speed of the bus and took it on kaccha road. The driver of the bus left sufficient space on the road for Ganpat to cross. It was further pleaded that Ganpat was not having a driving licence and that he did not know to drive the motor vehicle. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. Issue No. 1 related to negligence of the driver of Roadways bus while issue No. 2 related to claim. Issue No. 3 related to specific pleas of the Roadways as well as of the driver. 7. The claimants examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited documents postmortem report (Ex.1). FIR (Ex. 2), site plan (Ex.3) and charge-sheet (Ex.4). Usman Sheikh did not come to witness box neither, appellant-Roadways produced any evidence before learned Tribunal. Certified copies of Jamabandi were only produced on behalf of non-claim-ant-appellants before the learne f Tribunal. 8. The learned Tribunal under issue No. 1 held that it was the bus driver of the Roadways who was rashly and negligently driving the vehicle and dashed against the motor cycle driven by Ganpat. So, it was held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver. 8. The learned Tribunal under issue No. 1 held that it was the bus driver of the Roadways who was rashly and negligently driving the vehicle and dashed against the motor cycle driven by Ganpat. So, it was held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver. The case of the appellants before learned Tribunal was that there was contributory negligence of Ganpat as well but learned Tribunal did not accede to this contention of appellants. 9. The learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 1350/- as monthly contribution by deceased-Ganpat towards family and applied a multiplier of 20 after considering age of deceased, average life span of male members in the family of deceased and peculiar circumstances of the case. Learned Tribunal, thus, computed loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/-. For loss of consortium to wife of deceased and love an affection to members of the family an amour of Rs. 50,000/-. No amount was awarded for damage to the motor cycle and funeral expenses. The total compensation allowed the claimant respondents came to Rs 3,74,000/-. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent was also allowed on the amount of award from the date of filing of the claim petition.It is this judgment and Award which is under challenge in this appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for tin parties and gone through the record of tin case.Learned counsel for the appellants, at the first place, contended that learned Tribunal erred in not believing the plea of the appellants non-claimants regarding contributor) negligence. According to him, had decease) Ganpat taken caution he would have gone to little more to left side while driving the motor cycle and could have avoided the accident. Since he did not do so, it is a case of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for respondent-claimants repelled this argument. 11. From the evidence on record, I find that P.W.3 Shankar Lal is an eye-witness. He was also going from Banswara to Tejpur and Ganpat was a little ahead of him. According to him, the speed of the motor cycle was not more than30 kms./hour and the Roadways Bus No. RNF 2592 which came from opposite direction was being driven rashly and negligently at great speed. He was also going from Banswara to Tejpur and Ganpat was a little ahead of him. According to him, the speed of the motor cycle was not more than30 kms./hour and the Roadways Bus No. RNF 2592 which came from opposite direction was being driven rashly and negligently at great speed. Shankar Lal has deposed that Ganpat was driving the motor cycle on the left side of the road but the Roadways bus dashed the motorcycle and had thrown Ganpat along with motor vehicle. The motor cycle was also damaged. The accident was so severe that Ganpat died instantaneously. It was this witness Shankar Lal who gave information to Police Station on telephone from Tejpur and then the SHO came at the site of accident. 12. The SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Banswara inspected the site and prepared 'Panchanama' Ex. P3. SHO Abhay Singh (PW 2) deposed before learned Tribunal that the accident took place at place "X" in the site plan where splinters had fallen. He stated that it was Usman Sheikh who was driver of the Roadways bus and after the accident he reversed the bus and ran away after standing it in right direction. According to him, the accident took place due to rashness and negligence of driver of the bus.He was cross-examined at length on behalf of the Roadways "but he maintained that the accident took place due to rash driving of the bus by Roadways" driver. He denied the suggestion that the Roadways bus driver had brought down the bus to kaccha road. He maintained that the motor cycle was on left corner of the coal tar road. He also, admitted that there was still 8.40 ' kacchaa road on the left side of coal tar road. It was suggested to him that had the driver of motor cycle taken his vehicle to kaccha road the accident could have been avoided. It was further suggested that driver of the motorcycle was driving it in middle of the road. The SHO did not support these suggestions. He has stated that had Ganpat tried to bring down his vehicle to kaccha road, he would not have been able to save himself from falling down. When it is clear that Ganpat was on his side and the Roadways' bus was coming with a very great speed and was being driven rashly and negligently. He has stated that had Ganpat tried to bring down his vehicle to kaccha road, he would not have been able to save himself from falling down. When it is clear that Ganpat was on his side and the Roadways' bus was coming with a very great speed and was being driven rashly and negligently. It was the Roadways bus driver whose negligence caused the accident. From the testimony of PW2-Abhay Singh it does not transpire that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased Ganpat. The appellants have, therefore. failed to prove contributory negligence.Much so, the driver of the bus never came to witness box nor any evidence was produced by Roadways" before the Tribunal, I agree with the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of Roadways" bus. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants, in the second place, contended before me that income of Ganpat could not have been more than Rs. 1000/- per month and keeping in view age of Ganpat, a higher multiplier was applied by the learned Tribunal. According to him a lesser multiplier ought to have been applied. 14. From the evidence on record, I find that Smt. Galab-widow of deceased Ganpat deposed before learned Tribunal that her husband used to earn from agriculture a sum of Rs. 12000/- a year. She also stated that Ganpat used to earn Rs, 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- by sale of milk. According to her the deceased was the only breadearner in the family, maintaining her mother-wife and children. She deposed that deceased used to spend Rs. 1500/- per month on his family.In her cross-examination, she stated that after death of her husband, the business of milk vending was closed. She admitted that if anybody comes to their house to purchase milk, it is supplied to him, however, the way in which earning was being done by Ganpat during his life time, is stopped. She maintained in her cross-examination that Ganpat used to contribute Rs. 1500/- per month towards family. There is no evidence in rebuttal on behalf of appellant-Roadways. 15. PW3 Shankar Lal who knew Ganpat, deposed in a cursory way that Ganpat used to earn Rs. 1000/- from his milk business and Rs. 15000/- per year from agriculture. He also was not cross examined by the appellant on this count. 1500/- per month towards family. There is no evidence in rebuttal on behalf of appellant-Roadways. 15. PW3 Shankar Lal who knew Ganpat, deposed in a cursory way that Ganpat used to earn Rs. 1000/- from his milk business and Rs. 15000/- per year from agriculture. He also was not cross examined by the appellant on this count. So the evidence of respondent-claim-ants on the point of earning remained un-rebutted learned Tribunal observed that the evidence of respondent was not as clear as it should have been but when there was no rebuttal on behalf of appellants, it came to conclusion that Ganpat used to earn Rs. 1000/- from milk vending and Rs. 1000/-from agriculture per month and that he used to spend Rs. 650/- on himself. So the the contribution of Rs. 1350/- towards family was held to be appropriate. 16. Learned Tribunal assessed annual income of the deceased taking dependency of claimants at Rs. 1350/- per month and applied a multiplier of 20. Thus, the total amount came to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Ganpat died at at the age of 40 years as per the post mortem report Ex. 1. His earning capacity up to the age of 60 years was considered and, therefore, a multiplier of 20 was applied. According to learned counsel for the appellants this multiplier should have been lesser but I find from the evidence and circumstances that this multiplier was correctly applied, in view of the fact that average life span of male members in the family of deceased was about 70 years and even mother of deceased Ganpat was alive at the age of 60 years. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for appellants on this point is not tenable. 17. In the third place, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was asked for by the claimants for loss of love and affection to the family and as consortium. He submitted that there is no evidence to that effect. Needless to say, there is no evidence on behalf of the Roadways either on this point. It can very well be imagined that a middle aged woman. Smt. Galab at the age of 35 years became widow, four children were rendered orphan and old mother Smt. Sundar lost her son. He submitted that there is no evidence to that effect. Needless to say, there is no evidence on behalf of the Roadways either on this point. It can very well be imagined that a middle aged woman. Smt. Galab at the age of 35 years became widow, four children were rendered orphan and old mother Smt. Sundar lost her son. The bus of Roadways came as messenger of death and in no time snatched away the bread earner and loved one of the family. The widow has to look after old mother-in-law and children. The blank in their life due to un-timely death of Ganpat cannot be compensated in terms of money. For six persons a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection here cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, the findings of the learned Tnibunal on the point and award of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection as well as consortium to wife are correctly arrived at. The learned Tribunal itself did not allow any amount for repairs of motor cycle and expenses towards funeral because there was no evidence on the point.In the circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded to respondent-claim-ants is just and cannot be said to be excessive. 18. The last argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the amount paid under interim award has not been adjusted towards final award and it ought to be adjusted. To this prayer, learned counsel for claimant-respondents has no objection.In view of above discussion. I partly allow this appeal and order modification of the award under appeal to the extent that amount of Interim award paid to the claimants, shall be adjusted towards final award. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******