JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, dated August 23, 1991. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order since they arise out of the same accident in which Durgesh Sharma and Narayanprasad died. 2. Short facts are that bus No. CIH-7817 caused the accident on 20-10-1988 at about 12 O' clock in the night at Gandhi Chowk Mohalla Shukrawari, near Mahavir Pillar, Seoni in which Durgesh Sharma and Narayanprasad were killed. Allegation is that the deceased were witnessing Dashehra procession when the bus driven rashly and negligently ran over the deceased. Durgesh Sharma was a teacher, while Narayanprasad Kunbi was a Laboratory Attendant in the Government College, Seoni. Salary of Durgesh Sharma was Rs. 1164.00 p.m. and he used to spend Rs. 800.00 towards the maintenance of his family. He was 28 year old. As a result of this accident, the family has been deprived of maintenance. Claim for Rs. 8,96,970.00 has been claimed. Salary of Narayanprasad Kunbi was Rs. 1100.00 p.m. He was 40 year old and spending Rs. 900.00 on the family every month. Compensation of Rs. 4,51,000.00 has been claimed. 3. Defence taken is that when the driver reached Shukrawari Chowk, the bus was stopped by the procession and he was slowly and steadily driving the bus on the instructions of the police. When it proceeded beyond Mahavir Pillar completely, the bus was stopped on hue and cry raised by people and it was found that some persons had been injured from the hind portion of the bus. Since they were not killed from the front portion of the bus, the Appellant was not responsible for payment of compensation. However, ex-gratia payment of Rs. 10,000.00 was made to the claimants of each of the deceased. 4. The Tribunal found on evidence that the accident took place on 20-10-1998 at 12 p.m. when the road was closed for the vehicles other than those of the processionists. It also found that while the bus was being reversed, the deceased were killed due to negligence and rashness of the driver. The claim has accordingly been allowed to the extent mentioned in the award in both the cases. 5. It also found that while the bus was being reversed, the deceased were killed due to negligence and rashness of the driver. The claim has accordingly been allowed to the extent mentioned in the award in both the cases. 5. Shri P. K. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the award is liable to be set aside for the reason that it is excessive in case it is found that the Appellant is responsible for the accident which is seriously disputed as the accident had not taken place due to rashness or negligence of the driver. Contention so raised is opposed by Shri Arvind Shrivastava for the Respondents. Learned Counsel submits that the driver was responsible for the accident which would not have taken place had he not been rash and negligent. The driver knew very well that the procession was going on at the relevant time and he should not have driven and reversed the bus at such a place. He submits that the award is reasonable and just, therefore, it deserves to be maintained. 6. We have perused the record of the case and gone through the statements of witnesses. In substance, the evidence demonstrates that the driver should not have taken the vehicle on that road at that time since Dashehra procession was going on and large number of people were either participating in it or were witnessing it. Evidence also discloses that police had closed the road for the vehicles except those of the processionists at that time, still this driver took the vehicle not only on that side, but also reversed it knowing full well that people were moving in the procession or were staring at it. He should not have taken the risk of driving on that part of the road or reversed the vehicle. Taking the risk would, in the facts and circumstances of the case amount to committing rash and negligent act for which obviously he is responsible. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal holding the driver responsible is in consonance with the evidence and the facts of the case which is hereby confirmed. 7. Turning to the compensation awarded in this case, we find that the assessment is quite reasonable taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the amount of dependency in this case. Rather the multiplier used is on the lower side. 7. Turning to the compensation awarded in this case, we find that the assessment is quite reasonable taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the amount of dependency in this case. Rather the multiplier used is on the lower side. There are no cross-objections in these appeals. 8. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. Costs on parties.