JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed under Section of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the Judgement dated 2.7.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.95 of 1994 whereby the Judgment and Award dated 10.8.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') was upheld and the appeal filed by the claimants was dismissed. 3. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased. On 3.8.1989 at about 8.55 AM. while the deceased was passing on the road coming from Umed Bhawan to Circuit House on his Moped Luna, he met with an accident near the Circuit Houst with Truck No. Rs. 3,535/- which was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was following the Traffic Rules and since the Truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver, the accident occurred and the Truck dashed against his Moped Luna, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and suffered severe injuries and became unconscious. The vehicle of the deceased was also completely damaged. He was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment where he was admitted for treatment and despite best efforts of the treating Doctors, he could not survive and succumbed to the injuries. 4. A report of this incident was lodged immediately by one Bhanwarsingh Traffic Police Constable. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against respondent No.1 in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur. A claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal claiming compensation in all to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs against respondents No. 1 and 2. A written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 separately. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed the Issues. 5. In support of their claim, the claimants examined P.W. Smt. Shashi, P.W.2 Devesh Prasad Sharma, P.W.3 Bhanwarsingh, P.W.4 Kamlesh Shukla and P.W.5 Srikant Sharma. Certain documents including the copies of police investigation and post moretm report were brought on record by the claimants and were exhibited. In rebuttal, the respondents did not choose to lead any evidence. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal vide its Judgment and Award dated 10.8.1992 passed an Award of Rs. 88,000/- in favour of the claimants. 7. In rebuttal, the respondents did not choose to lead any evidence. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal vide its Judgment and Award dated 10.8.1992 passed an Award of Rs. 88,000/- in favour of the claimants. 7. Aggrieved by the above Award dated 10.8.1992, the claimants preferred S.B.Civil Misc. Petition No.95 of 1994 before this Court stating that the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal is too low and is not in consonance with the decisions of Supreme Court and various High Courts. The appeal was preferred by the claimants only insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation. 8. According to the appellants, it has been proved by cogent evidence that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Clerk at Madhav Aushdhalaya, Juni Dhan Mandi, Jodhpur and he was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and in addition to that, he was engaged on the post of Night Chowkidar cum Supervisor in Maheshwari Textiles from where he used to earn Rs. 950/- per month. Thus, it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,150/- was his monthly income. It is submitted that this fact stands proved by the statements of P.W.1 Smt. Shashi and P.W.2 Devesh Prasad Sharma, who is a Doctor of Madhav Aushdhalaya and the Statement of P.W.5 Srikant Sharma. 9. As already noticed,the respondents have not examined any witness and even they have not filed any documentary proof to disprove the claim of the claimants. Thus, the evidence adduced by the claimants remain uncontroverted. 10. Our attention was drawn to the evidence of P.W.5 Srikant Sharma also, who is partner of Maheshwari Textiles. He has deposed that deceased was engaged in his factory and he used to earn Rs. 950/- per month on the post of Chowkidar cum Supervisor. However, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the testimony of the claimants' witnesses and awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of loss of income; Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of live; Rs. 10,000/- under the head of consortium; Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs. 2,000/- under the Head of Funeral charges; Rs. 500/- against Medical expenses and Rs. 500/- against repairs of Luna moped. Thus, in this way, the Tribunal awarded in all a sum of Rs. 88,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 11. 10,000/- under the head of consortium; Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs. 2,000/- under the Head of Funeral charges; Rs. 500/- against Medical expenses and Rs. 500/- against repairs of Luna moped. Thus, in this way, the Tribunal awarded in all a sum of Rs. 88,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 11. As already noticed, this Award of the learned Tribunal was challenged by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.95 of 1994 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Judgement dated 2.7.1997. 12. We have perused the entire pleadings inclusive of oral and documentary evidence led in the case as also the impugned Judgements of the Tribunal and of the learned Single Judge of this Court. In our opinion, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence led by the claimants. We have read the evidence of P.W.1 Smt. Shashi, P.W.2 Devesh Prasad Sharma, P.W.3 Bhanwarsingh, P.W.4 Kamlesh Shukla and P.W.5 Srikant Sharma. From the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2150/- per month. There is no rebuttal either by the owner of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company. We have already noticed that at the time of accident and his death, deceased was aged about 31 years. He was admitted in the Hospital for treatment and despite best efforts of his treating Doctors, he could not survive. The claimants have spent some money on his treatment and funeral, which have also been proved by the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. 13. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the Tribunal has not adopted multiplier and has awarded compensation by adopting rough and ready method. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various Heads is also unsustainable on the basis of the record. The assessment of compensation is based on surmises and conjectures. 14. Mr. R.K. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company when confronted with the evidence led and other circumstances of the case, he stated that the total maximum liability of the Insurance Company would not go beyond Rs. 1,50,000/- as envisaged under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, it cannot wriggle out of its obligation under the above. provisions. 1,50,000/- as envisaged under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, it cannot wriggle out of its obligation under the above. provisions. Mr. Mehta submitted that the accident took place on 3.9.1989 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 came into force with effect from 1.7.1989 i.e. two months prior to the date of accident viz., 3.9.1989. He submitted that proviso to Section 147(2) of the Act of 1989 provides that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. Mr. Mchta, therefore, submits that in this case, the policy of insurance issued with limited liability of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall continue to be effective till 31.10.1989 and, therefore, the Insurance Company, if at all, can be held liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-. 15. In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal as affirmed by the learned single Judge is not adequate and in the background of the circumstances of this case, the compensation awarded should be suitably modified and enhanced. Though an argument was raised by Mr. R.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased was not working as compounder but there is no material before us to accept this version. The Insurance Company did not deny this fact specifically in its written statement. Thus, it is amply proved that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2150/- per month and the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal without adopting any multiplier is bad in law. 16. This Court as well as other High Courts and also the Supreme Court have held that multiplier method is logically sound and legal. Thus, since the multiplier is not adopted in this case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned single Judge cannot be considered as a proper compensation to be awarded to the claimants. However, taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants in regard to expenses incurred for treatment, damages to the vehicle,and considering loss of love and affection, consortium, loss of income and the age of the deceased, we feel it proper and Justify to award a sum of Rs. However, taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants in regard to expenses incurred for treatment, damages to the vehicle,and considering loss of love and affection, consortium, loss of income and the age of the deceased, we feel it proper and Justify to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. If multiplier method is adopted, the claimants would have got more money by way of compensation. However, taking into consideration the long pendency of the matter, we do not propose to adopt that method or to remit the matter to the Tribunal but in stead of that, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the claimants together with interest 12% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 4.11.1989 till the date of realisation. 17. It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned single Judge alongwith interest has already been deposited and the same has also been withdrawn by the claimants. The amount already paid will be adjusted against the total amount of compensation. The Insurance Company is given two months time to deposit the entire balance amount of compensation with interest from the date of claim petition. 18. With these directions, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Award dated 10.8.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur as affirmed vide Judgement dated 2.7.1997 of this Court is modified to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******