JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. This judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 14/95, 41/95, 33/95, 25/95, 17/95, 42/95, 32/95, 16/95, 43/95 and 44/95 as they arise out of the common award dated 27-7-1994 passed by Member M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Cases Nos. 25/90, 17/90, 18/90, 26/90, 19/90, 20/90, 24/90, 21/90, 23/90 and 22/90. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22-1-1989 Rameshchand, his wife Kamlabai, son Prahlad Singh, daughters Ku. Jyoti and Ku. Alka, brother Prakash Singh, mother Parwatibai, mother-in-law Geetabai, sister-in-law's daughter Ku. Pinki were coming from Sanwariyaji travelling in ambassador car No. M.P.C. 3481 driven by Devilal and were going to Indore. Near Mandsaur Circuit House, respondent No. 3 came from opposite direction driving passenger bus bearing registration No. M.B.H. 860, belonging to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, as a result of which, the driver Devilal, Prakash Singh, Ku. Alka, Ku. Jyoti, Parwatibai, Pinki and Geetabai died due to injuries sustained by them in the accident and Prahlad and Kamlabai suffered injuries. Kalpanabai and Nilima, wife and daughter of the deceased Devilal; Shrilal Joshi and Smt. Leelabai, the parents, filed separate claim cases Nos. 25/90 and 17/90 respectively. Ramesh filed claim cases No. 18/90, 26/90, 19/90 and 20/90 for grant of compensation for the death of his brother Prakash Singh, daughters Ku. Alka and Jyoti and mother Parwatibai respectively. Gopal Singh filed claim case No. 24/90 for the death of his daughter Pinki. Kamlabai and Prahlad filed claim cases No. 21/90 and 23/90 for the injuries sustained by them. The respondents No. 1 to 3 filed common written-statement in all the claim cases. They resisted the claim and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car by the deceased Devilal. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of both sides held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the passenger bus No. M.B.H. 860 and awarded compensation. The respondent M.P.S.R.T.C. being aggreived of the compensation amount have filed these appeals. The respondents have not filed any appeal against these awards. Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and deserves reduction. On the other hand, Shri Gangrade and Shri Pandey, Learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned award. The respondents have not filed any appeal against these awards. Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and deserves reduction. On the other hand, Shri Gangrade and Shri Pandey, Learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned award. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. M.A. No. 14/95 (C.C. No, 25/90) and M.A. No. 41/95 (C.C. No. 17/90). The father and mother of the deceased Devilal claimed compensation of Rs. 4,55,000/- (C.C. No. 17/90) while his widow Kalpanabai and minor daughter Nilima sought compensation of Rs. 3,34,000/- . The Tribunal determined different dependency and selected different multiplier for each claimant. The procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal for assessing compensation for the death of deceased Devilal is erroneous and not acceptable. Normally multiplier is selected on the basis of the age of the deceased and that of the dependents which was higher. But different multipliers cannot be adopted for different dependents. The Tribunal will take into consideration the age of the dependents while apportioning the compensation amount among the claimants. Same is the case with dependency. It has come in the evidence of Kalpana Joshi (C.W.2), the widow of the deceased that her husband was earning Rs. 900/- per month. According to Shrilal Joshi, the father of the deceased, the monthly earning of the deceased was Rs. 1200/- . From the above evidence it appears that monthly earning of the deceased was at Rs. 900/- . After deducting l/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 600/- and yearly Rs. 7200/- . The widow deposed that her husband Devilal was aged about 28 years. In view of it we select multiplier of 17. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to (7200 x 17) = Rs. 1,22,400/- . Each of the appellant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and love and affection, and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, on addition of which the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,44,400/- . It is rounded up to Rs. 1,45,000/- . In our opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the award and direct that the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 1,44,400/- . It is rounded up to Rs. 1,45,000/- . In our opinion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the award and direct that the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 1,45,000/- severally and jointly to the appellants with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of claim-application (after adjusting the amount already deposited). Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the widow Kalpana Joshi, Rs. 45,000/- to Ku. Nilima, minor daughter of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- to Shrilal Joshi and Smt. Leelabai each with accrued interest. We further direct that the share of the minor daughter Nilima be deposited in nationalised bank in fixed deposit in interest paying scheme for the period till she becomes major. M.A. No. 33/95 (claim case No. 18/90). The claimant Ramesh filed claim case No. 18/90 seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lacs for the death of his brother Prakash Singh. He made his brothers and sisters respondents No. 4 to 7 as proforma parties as he was living with him only. The Tribunal determined earning of the deceased Prakash Singh at Rs. 2,000/- per month and assessed dependency at Rs. 700/- per month and applying multiplier of 5 awarded compensation of Rs. 67,000/- . Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel for the appellants No. 1 to 3, submitted that the claimant being brother of the deceased was not the legal heir of the deceased and was not entitled to claim compensation. In the alternative he urged that multiplier of 5 could not have been applied by the Tribunal as the deceased was aged about 25 years and within a year he must have been married and separated himself from the respondent Ramesh. On the other hand Shri Gangrade, Learned Counsel for respondents, prayed for enhancement of compensation amount. We considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides. It has come in the evidence of Ramesh Chand that his brother Prakash was living with him and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the earning of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and rightly so. Ramesh did not state as to what amount was being given by Prakash Singh to him. It has come in the evidence of Ramesh Chand that his brother Prakash was living with him and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the earning of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and rightly so. Ramesh did not state as to what amount was being given by Prakash Singh to him. Under such circumstances, it may be assumed that he was spending half of his earning on himself. Under such circumstances, the dependency would come to Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 12,000/- yearly. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 5 observing that the deceased might have lived for 5 years more with the claimant Ramesh and thereafter must have married and procured children and separated from the claimant. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount would come to (12000 x 5) = Rs. 60,000/- and on addition of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 67,000/- . In our opinion, the amount of compensation of Rs. 67,000/- awarded for the death of deceased Prakash Singh cannot be said to be on higher side. The claimant Rameshchand is the brother of the deceased. He was living with him. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimant has been deprived of the monetary benefit and thereby suffered pecuniary loss. Even otherwise, there being no heir of class-I in view of Hindu Succession Act the claimant is entitled to the maintenance allowance. His other brothers and sisters did not claim any amount. We find no ground for interfering in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss M.A. No. 33/95. M.A. No. 25/95 and 32//95, 42/95 (C.C. No. 26/90, 20/90 and 24/90). The claimant Rameshchand filed claim case No. 26/90 for the death of his daughter Ku. Alka aged ten years and claim case No. 20/90 for the death of his daughter Ku. Jyoti aged 12 years and Gopal filed claim case No. 24/90 for the death of the daughter Ku. Pinky aged about 8 years seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in each case. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/- in each case. It is true that these girls were not earning members. Jyoti aged 12 years and Gopal filed claim case No. 24/90 for the death of the daughter Ku. Pinky aged about 8 years seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in each case. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/- in each case. It is true that these girls were not earning members. But the fact that the legislature vide Amendment Act 54 of 1994 enhanced the amount of compensation payable under 'no fault liability' u/s 140 of the M.V. Act from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- , clearly indicates the intention of the legislature that human life shall not be valued less than Rs. 50,000/- . It is true that this accident took place before coming into force of the amendment but looking to the intention of the legislature, in our opinion, the amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for each death cannot be said to be on higher side. It appears to be just and reasonable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals. M. A. No. 17/95 (claim case No. 19/90). The claimant Rameshchand filed this claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the death of his mother Parwatibai aged 50 years. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/- per month, determined dependency at Rs. 500/- per month and selected multiplier of 10 and worked out Rs. 50,000/- . It further granted Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- . In our opinion, the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection. A token amount of Rs. 5,000/- may be awarded on this count. It has come in the evidence of Rameshchand that his mother was earning Rs. 1500/- per month by selling milk. This statement has not been challenged in cross-examination, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this evidence given on oath before the Tribunal. We, therefore, accept the statement of Rameshchand and hold that his mother was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. After deducting the expenses incurred in producing milk it can be assumed that her net earning was Rs. 1000/- per month and yearly Rs. 12,000/- . After deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs. We, therefore, accept the statement of Rameshchand and hold that his mother was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. After deducting the expenses incurred in producing milk it can be assumed that her net earning was Rs. 1000/- per month and yearly Rs. 12,000/- . After deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs. 8,000/- , in view of the age of the deceased which was 50 years multiplier of 10 is selected. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount comes to Rs. 80,000/- . The claimant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses. On addition of which, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 87,000/- . The Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- . We, therefore, partly allow this appeal, modify the award and direct that the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 87,000/- severally and jointly to the claimants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim application (after adjusting the amount already deposited) within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. M.A. No. 16/95 (claim case No. 21/90). Kamlabai claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the death of her mother Geetabai. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- . The argument of Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel that this amount of compensation is on higher side, is not acceptable. As stated earlier, the legislature by amending Act of 54/94 enhanced compensation amount payable under no fault liability u/s 140 of the Act from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- . It clearly indicates that the human life cannot be assessed less than Rs. 50,000/- . Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal committed no error in awarding Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for the death of Geetabai. This appeal is, therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed. M.A. No. 43/95 (Claim Case No. 23/90). Prahlad aged about 17 years, son of Ramesh prayed for award of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries caused to him in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for physical pain and Rs. 50,000/- for future loss of income, totalling Rs. 1,30,000/- . 5,00,000/- for the injuries caused to him in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for physical pain and Rs. 50,000/- for future loss of income, totalling Rs. 1,30,000/- . Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel, submitted that the amount of compensation is on higher side and it must be reduced. On the other hand, Shri Gangrade for the respondents, submitted that the respondent is a boy aged about 17 years. He has become permanently disabled. Under such circumstances, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. It has come in the evidence of Prahlad Singh, his father Rameshchand and mother Kamlabai that in the accident Prahlad sustained injuries in his left hand, left leg and on his head. His memory had become weak. He was studying in 9th class at the time of accident and due to loss of memory he had to leave his studies. He deposed that due to the injuries, a rod was put inside his leg. Now he could not stand on leg for a longer period and always felt pain. His father Rameshchand and mother Kamlabai supported his evidence. Dr. Alok Mehta (C.W. 6). Orthopaedic surgeon, examined him on 2-9-1993 and opined that his left hand and left leg had become permanently disabled. Dr. Mehta assessed disability in the left hand at 29% and in left leg at 55% vide report Ex. P.79 and P. 83. There appear no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Alok Mehta. It has come in the evidence of Rameshchand that he spent Rs. 40,000/- for the treatment of his son Prahlad. He filed cash-memos Ex. P. 19 to 74 and other documents. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly granted Rs. 40,000/- for the expenses incurred in the treatment of the claimant and Rs. 40,000/- for physical and mental pain, in view of the disability suffered by him. However, the Tribunal did not assign any reason for award of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of future income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow Rs. 15,000/- on this count. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 95,000/- . We, therefore, accept this appeal and modify the award and direct that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- for loss of future income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow Rs. 15,000/- on this count. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 95,000/- . We, therefore, accept this appeal and modify the award and direct that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 95,000/- to the claimant with interest as directed by the Tribunal. M.A. No. 44/95 (claim case No. 22/90). The claimant Kamlabai filed claim case No. 22/90 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- . Shri Kemkar, Learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that this amount of compensation is on higher side. We went through the evidence on record. Kamlabai deposed that she sustained fracture in one leg and dislocation in the other and injuries on her face and back. Rod was inserted in her leg. She had to remain indoor patient for 2-3 months in Indore hospital. She was not in a position to work with her hand. She deposed that she had to spend Rs. 30,000/- over her treatment. The Tribunal relied her evidence and held that she must have spent Rs. 30,000/- in her treatment. But the claimant did not examine the Doctor who had treated her, nor cash-memos of the medicines purchased, were produced. In absence of cash-memos and medical bills, the claimant may be awarded Rs. 10,000/- for treatment and Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental pain and suffering etc, totalling Rs. 30,000/- . The appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified and it is directed that the respondents No. 1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant with interest as directed by the Tribunal. Final Result : Allowed