JUDGMENT R.L.Khurana, J.: On 5.9.1988, at-Chakkar-about 7 Km. from Mandi at about 9.30 A.M. an accident had taken place, involving taxi bearing No.PNZ-181 and a bus belonging-to Himachal Road-Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) bearing No.HIB 348. In such accident, one Madan Lal, an occupant of the taxi sustained multiple body injuries, while one Raghubir Singh, the owner-cum-driver of the taxi had died . 2. The above named Madan Lal, and the legal heirs of the deceased Raghubir Singh approached the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Mandi, for compensation. Such Claim Petitions came to be registered as claim Petition No. 11 and 10 of 1989 on the files of the learned Tribunal. While claiming the compensation, it was averred that the accident was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Kartar Singh, the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. 3. The Corporation and its driver pleaded that the accident was not as a result of the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver, Kartar Singh. 4. The learned Tribunal vide its two separate awards dated 1.1.1991, held t hat the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Kartar Singh, the driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal accordingly allowed compensation as under to the two sets of claimants :- (i) Madan Lal Rs. 41,500.00 . (ii) Legal heirs of deceased Raghubir Singh. Rs. 1,07,160.0.0 5. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has come up before this court by way of appeals being F.A.O. No. 32 of 1991 and F.A.O.No. 131 of 1991, assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal, both on the question of negligence and quantum of compensation. 6. The legal heirs of the deceased Raghubir Singh also felt dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in their favour. They have, therefore, preferred cross-objections, being Cross-Objection No. 92 of 1992 in F.A.O. No. 131 of 1991. 7. Both the appeals filed by the Corporation and the cross-objections preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Raghubir Singh, are being proposed to be disposed of by this single judgments. 8. The question of negligence is common in both the cases. Accident is not denied. It is also admitted that claimant Madan La has sustained injuries while deceased Raghubir Singh had died in such accident. 8. The question of negligence is common in both the cases. Accident is not denied. It is also admitted that claimant Madan La has sustained injuries while deceased Raghubir Singh had died in such accident. The Corporation as well as its driver Kartar Singh have denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. They have tried to prove during the course of trial that the accident was as a result of sudden mechanical defect inasmuch as there was sudden failure of brakes. 9. It is well settled that it is not enough for the owner of the vehicle to contend that the accident was due to a sudden mechanical defect. He must further establish that the mechanical failure had occurred inspite of his taking all necessary precautions in the maintenance of the vehicle as roadworthy "vehicle. 10. In MinuB. Mehta v. Bal Krishnan Ramachandra Nayan [A.I.R. 1977 SC 1248]. The Supreme Court has pointed out that in order to succeed on a plea that the accident was due to a mechanical defect in the vehicle, the owner must show that the defect was latent and not discoverable by use of reasonable care and the vehicle was kept in a roadworthy condition and the defect occurred in spite of reasonable care and caution taken by the owner. From the decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that the burden of proving that the accident was due to any mechanical or other defect in the vehicle was on the owners and it is their duty to show that they have taken all reasonable care and despite such care, the defect remained hidden. 11. In the present case not only that the necessary pleadings are lacking, the evidence also is lacking to show that the defect was latent and was not discoverable by the use of reasonable care and that the bus was kept in a roadworthy condition and the defect had occurred inspite of reasonable care and caution taken by the Corporation. 12. Therefore, on the basis of evidence coming on record, the learried Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Kartar Singh, the driver of the bus. 13. 12. Therefore, on the basis of evidence coming on record, the learried Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Kartar Singh, the driver of the bus. 13. Having dealt with the common question of negligence involved in the two appeals and the cross-objections, we now proceed to take up each case individually, in order to determine whether just and equitable compensation stands awarded in favour of each set of claimants. F.A.O.No.32 of l99l. 14. The claimant in this case is the injured Madan Lal, the occupant of | the taxi. At the relevant time, he was of about 56 years of age and was working ) as Deputy Organizing Secretary of DA.V. College Management Committee. , He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs., 7500/-. Though he had sustained multiple injuries in the accident, nothing has come on the record to show that he has suffered any permanent physical disability. 15. The medical certificate Ex.PW 5/A shows that the claimant Madan Lal had suffered fracture of left fibula and the fracture of 3rd and 4th right ribs. He also sustained penetrating wounds on this right arm, shoulder face and chin. He remained under treatment of PW 5, Dr. D.R.Parbhakar at Delhi. 16. The claimant Madan Lal during the course of his medical treatment remained confined to bed for more than two months. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence coming on record awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,500/- in favour of the claimant Madan Lal, as under :- (i) Attendant expenses, Rs. L500.00 (ii) Medical expenses. Rs.20,000.00 (iii) Pain and Sufferings. Rs.20,000.00 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that just and reasonable compensation stands awarded to the claimant, Madan Lal, and no interference is called for in the assessment of compensation made by the learned Tribunal. FAQ. No. 131 of 1991 and Cross Objection No. 93 of 1991. 17. The claimants in this case are the legal heirs of the deceased Raghubir Singh. The deceased, at the time of accident and death was of about 62 years of age. He was the owner of three taxies and. one of such taxies was being being driven by him. 18. The learned Tribunal by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs. The deceased, at the time of accident and death was of about 62 years of age. He was the owner of three taxies and. one of such taxies was being being driven by him. 18. The learned Tribunal by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 1000/- per month or say Rs. 12,000/- per annum. A multiplier of eight was applied and compensation of Rs. 96,000/- was assessed. To this amount was added the conventional amount of Rs. 3000/- towards loss of life expectancy. Another sum of Rs. 8160/- towards damage to the taxi was allowed. Thus, total compensation payable was assessed at Rs. 1,07,160/- 19. Considering the age of the deceased and that of each of the claimants, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of eight. The dependency of the claimants has also been rightly assessed at Rs. 1000/-. It is significant to note that the claimants would continue to derive the income by getting the taxi plied by a driver. The loss to them would be only to the extent of the wages of a driver, which they would be expected to engage for plying the taxi. 20. Similarly, on the evidence coming on record the damage to the taxi has been rightly assessed at Rs. 8160/- 21. We, therefore, hold that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal qua the death of deceased Raghubir Singh and for the damage to the taxi is just and reasonable and no interference is called for in the assessment made by the learned Tribunal. Final Order. As a result of the foregoing reasons, both the appeals preferred by the Corporation, as well as the Cross-objections preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Raghubir Singh are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.