Honble SHARMA, J.–This order shall dispose of eight appeals along with cross objections heard analogously. These appeals arise from the judgment dated July 24, 1986 of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal Kota. (2). The brief facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid appeals are that the father of the claimants Sh. Sunder Lal Jain on 20.9.1982 was travelling by Truck No.RSO-605 alongwith his wife Smt. Anokhi Bai and grand-sons namely Vijay, Ajay and Mahaveer. The said truck was hired by Sh. Sunder Lal Jain for carrying the goods to the village. Ghagtana and its charges were paid to the owner of the truck. When the said truck reached at railway crossing of the village Brijeshpur, it collided with a railway engine at the unmanned railway crossing resulting death of Shri SunderLal, Smt. Anokhi Bai, Mahaveer and the truck driver. Vijay and Ajay sustained injuries, on their leg and hand. As many as five claim petitions were filed by the claimants-respondents, which were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by a common judgment. (3). Claim petitions Nos. 28/1983 and 30/1983 were filed by Premchand, Dr.Amar Singh, Hukam Chand and Kamlesh Kumar, the sons of deceased Sh. Sunder Lal and Smt. Anokhi Bai. Claim Petition No. 32/1983 was filed by Dr. Amar Singh the father of deceased Mahaveer, claim petition no. 29/83 was filed by Sh. Prem Chand and Smt. Kamla the parents of injured Vijay and claim petition no. 31/83 was filed by Dr. Amar Singh, the father of injured Ajay. (4). Learned Tribunal framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the claimants statements of AW 1 Premchand Jain, Vijay Bahadur AW 2 and Dr. Amar Singh AW 3 were recorded. Insurance Company produced Shri Shyam Mohan Garjiya as NAW 1. Statement of Truck owner Ram Lal NAW 3 and cleaner Kalu NAW 3 were also recorded. However, no witness was produced on behalf of Union ofIndia. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was as under :- for the death of Shri Sunder Lal Jain 150 x 12 x 12 Rs. 18,000/- for the death of Smt. Anokhi Bai 900 x 10 Rs. 9,000/- for the death of Mahaveer 150 x 12 x 20 Rs. 36,000/- for the injuries sustained by Vijay Rs. 15,500/- for the injuries sustained by Ajay Rs. 15,500/- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 66/91 AND 160/91. (5). 18,000/- for the death of Smt. Anokhi Bai 900 x 10 Rs. 9,000/- for the death of Mahaveer 150 x 12 x 20 Rs. 36,000/- for the injuries sustained by Vijay Rs. 15,500/- for the injuries sustained by Ajay Rs. 15,500/- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 66/91 AND 160/91. (5). Union of India has filed these appeals alongwith the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Looking to the averments made in the applications the delay in filing the appeals is being condoned. It hasbeen averred in these appeals that the Tribunal erred in holding that no adequate precautions have been taken by the railways at the level crossing at unmanned level crossing no gateman is provided and in such cases a person crossing the railway lines had to take the precaution as to whether the train was passing or not. The Tribunal did not properly appreciate the facts of the case while deciding theissue No.4. (6). Admittedly, no witness was produced by the Union of India before the learned Tribunal. The contention of learned counsel for the Union of India is that there was a negligence on the part of the truck driver and the Union of India is not liable to pay compensation. I do not agree with the argument advanced by the lear-ned counsel. (7). In Union of India vs. Supriya Ghosh & others (1) the Division Bench of Patna High Court observed thus :- ``Where gates of a level Railway crossing are open and one is thereby misled into thinking the line safe for crossing, the Railway Company or Railway Administration, as the case may be, is liable for damages and cannot take advantage of the plea of contributory negligence. (8). In Ramesh Chand Datta vs. Union of India (2), the Division Bench of Patna High Court observed thus :- ``Where a railway line crosses a busy road at such a point that the incoming train is not visible until the passer is on the railway track, there is no question of contributory negligence, in case of accident, inasmuch as the first duty in such a case is cast on the railway authorities to arrange for the safety of the passers. In such a case it would be the obvious duty of the railway administration, whether as invitors or licensors, to taken adequate steps post a man to warn the drivers of the vehicles of an approaching train. (9). In Sohan Lata vs. Union of India (3), the Division Bench of Assam High Court observed thus:- ``Where a railway line crossed a busy road at such a place that the coming train could not be seen due to a house and trees and shrubs near the road and the line and it was only when the members of the public using the road came on to the Ralway line that they could be in a position to know that a train was approaching, in such circumstances, it was obvious duty of the railway administration to have taken adequate steps to warn the public of the approaching trains, so that accidents might be avoided. Failure to do so amounted to a clear negligence on the part of the Railway. (10). In the instant case also, the negligence on the part of the railway administration can be inferred. The railway Administration was duty bound to have taken adequate steps to warn the public of the approaching trains on an unmanned railway level crossing, but no such steps were taken by the railway administration. (11). It was the duty of the Railway Administration to discharge the burden of proof with regard to the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the truck driver but no evidence was adduced to discharge the burden. Therefore, I hold that the issue No.4 was rightly decided by the learned Tribunal. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40/87 and cross objections (12). The Oriental Insurance Company filed this appeal assailing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. In claim petition No. 28/93 relating to the death of Sunder Lal Jain, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 18,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that thetruck was a goods vehicle but it was carrying the passengers and therefore, the breach of the policy was committed. It was further argued that full bench decision of this court in Santra Bais case (4) was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. (13). The appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that thetruck was a goods vehicle but it was carrying the passengers and therefore, the breach of the policy was committed. It was further argued that full bench decision of this court in Santra Bais case (4) was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. (13). In view of the Sohan Lal Passs case (5), it was the duty of the InsuranceCompany to plead and prove the wilful negligence on the part of the insured. Even if the breach of the policy was committed, it was further to be proved by the Insurance Company that the breach was committed by the driver in connivance with the owner of the truck. But neither the Insurance Company pleaded this fact nor proved it by evidence. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of theInsurance Company cannot be accepted. (14). The claimants have filed cross objections being dissatisfied with the size of the award. It was contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal was based on non-reading of material evidence. The deceased Sunder Lal Jain was earning Rs. 500/- per month from the retail shop and was also earning from cultivation of 100 Bighas irrigated agricultural land of his Khatedari which gave two crops every year. The amount awarded is so meagre and dis-proportionate which deserves to be increased. (15). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand contended that the dependency of the deceased Shri Sunder Lal Jain was rightly calculated. (16). I have been taken through the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal. AW 1 Prem Chand stated in his examination in chief that his father Sri SunderLal Jain was earning about Rs. 500/- per month from the retail shop and Rs. 5000/- per year from the agricultural land. Out of the said income Rs. 400/- per month were invested by his father on him and his mother and the rest of the income was utilised for the family. This witness was not cross examined in this regard and his testimony could not be shattered in the cross-examination. AW 3 Amer Singh has also corro-borated the testimony of Prem Chand Jain. Amar Singh was not cross-examined on this point and this testimony could not be shattered. This witness was not cross examined in this regard and his testimony could not be shattered in the cross-examination. AW 3 Amer Singh has also corro-borated the testimony of Prem Chand Jain. Amar Singh was not cross-examined on this point and this testimony could not be shattered. Witnesses examined by the respondent NAW 1 Shyam Murari, NAW 2 Ram Lal Sharma and NAW 3 Kalu have also not said anything with regard to income of late Shri Sunder Lal Jain. Therefore, the testimony of Prem Chand and Amar Singh was uncontroverted. Calculation ofmonthly income of Sunder Lal Jain at Rs. 150/- per month seems to be unreasonable. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the statements of Prem Chand and Amar Singh while calculating the income of Shri Sunder Lal Jain. Relying on the statement of Prem Chand and Amar Singh I calculate the dependency of Shri Sunder Lal Jain as under:- Rs. 600 x 12 x 10 = 72,000/- (17). Shri Sunder Lal Jain was 60 years of age at the time of death. Therefore the multiplier of 10 was rightly applied by the learned Tribunal and after deducting the amount spending by Shri Sunder Lal Jain upon him and his wife, I am of the view, that Shri Sunder Lal Jain was spending Rs. 600/- per month upon the claimants.Therefore, the dependency, in my view is required to be stepped up from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 72,000/-. It has also been contended in the cross objections that the learned Tribunal did not award any amount for mental agony and love and affection. It was incumbent upon learned Tribunal to consider the aspect of mental agony and love and affection. In my view, each of the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5000/-under this head. The total amount of compensation under this head comes to Rs. 20,000/-. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 46/87, 116/87, 117/87, 118/87 AND 119/87. (along with cross objection in 117/87) (18). The Oriental Insurance Company has filed all these appeals on the gro-und that the breach of the policy was committed by the insured, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation. As already stated by me while deciding Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40/87 that it was incumbant upon the Insurance Company to plead and prove the wilful negligence on the part of the insured. As the Insurance Co. As already stated by me while deciding Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40/87 that it was incumbant upon the Insurance Company to plead and prove the wilful negligence on the part of the insured. As the Insurance Co. did not plead and prove that the breach of the policy was com-mitted willfully by the insured, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. in all these appeals cannot be accepted, in view of the ratio propounded in Sohan Lal Passis case (supra). Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel submitted that he filed cross objections in C.M.A. No. 117/1987 on August 10, 1987, whereas the cross objections are not tagged with the appeal. Concerned clerk ofthe Registry was orally directed to search the cross objections but he informed that no cross objections appeared to be filed on the said date. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel has shown me the typed copy of the cross objections. A perusal of the said copy reveals that it relates to the death of Shri Sunder Lal Jain whereas the C.M.A. No. 117 of 1987 was filed assailing the award granted to the claimant in respect of death of Mahaveer. Therefore, even if it is assumed that cross objections were filed in C.M.A. No. 117 of 1987, they were not relevant to the award passed in respect of deceased Mahaveer. (19). Now, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of deceased Mahaveer can be interferred with even without filing the cross objections ? In State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain Singh (6) the Allahabad High Court observed thus :- ``Though the claimant did not file any cross objection, while dismi- ssing an appeal in a land acquisition case, the court can award solatium as per the amended provision of the Act. (20). Placing reliance on State of U.P.s case (supra) I proceed to consider the arguments of Shri N.K. Maloo learned counsel in respect of enhancement of compensation granted to claimant Amar Singh, the father of deceased Mahaveerwho was two years of age at the time of his death. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,000/- to the claimant Amar Singh. I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 36,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is much of the lower side and it requires enhancement. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 36,000/- to the claimant Amar Singh. I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 36,000/- awarded as compensation by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is much of the lower side and it requires enhancement. In Inder Mal vs. Devendra Kumar Patel (7) this court enhanced the compensation awarded to theparents of deceased who was a boy of six years, from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. I am therefore of the opinion, that a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) as the amount of compensation, will meet the ends of justice. (21). In view of the discussion made hereinabove all the appeals bearing No.66/91, 40/87, 46/87, 116/87, 117/87, 118/87, 119/87 and 160/91 stand dismissedwith cost. Cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed in part and I direct that the award for the death of Shri Sunder Lal Jain is required to be stepped up from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 92,000/- (Rs. Ninety two thousand only). The claimants shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. (22). The amount of compensation granted to the claimant Amar Singh for the death of his son Mahaveer is enhanced from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only). The claimant shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Other conditions imposed by the learned Tribunal with regard to disbursement of awardshall be the same.