BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim case No. 18 of 1994, dated 31. 1. 1998. ( 2 ) CLAIMANT was travelling in bus No. MP 04-F 0344, owned by Shrilal J. S. Ram and driven by Gangaprasad. Near village chetma, truck No. MP 23-B 3740, owned and driven by Karamjeet Singh rashly and negligently had collision with the other vehicle resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant in the right hand which ultimately had to be amputated causing permanent disability to the extent of 90 per cent. Claim for Rs. 20,84,500 has been made. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 3 and 4 stated that claimant was negligent since she should not have projected her hand outside the bus. The vehicle was insured with United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , while the truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal accepted the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,29,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Claimant is not satisfied with this award, hence this appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has held the claimant for contributory negligence to the extent that she had projected her arm outside the bus. However, compensation has not been reduced on that count. It found both the vehicles responsible in equal proportion. Finding of the Tribunal with respect to negligence of the claimant cannot be sustained. There is no evidence suggesting that the driver and conductor of the bus ever cautioned the passengers to keep their limbs inside the bus. Fact remains that it is the duty of the drivers of the vehicles to keep reasonable space between the two while crossing each other. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this court in Sushma Mitra v. M. P. State Road trans. Corpn. , 1974 ACJ 87 (MP) and single Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana high Court in State of Haryana v. Ram pal, 1989 ACJ 726 (Pandh ). Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter, but proceed to confirm the finding with respect to negligence of drivers of the two vehicles to equal extent. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter, but proceed to confirm the finding with respect to negligence of drivers of the two vehicles to equal extent. ( 7 ) NEXT question is whether compensation has been correctly determined in this case. Claimant stated that she was earning rs. 100 per day by garment stitching and rs. 40 per day from dairy business, thus earning Rs. 140 per day. Taking the other evidence also into consideration, we are of the opinion that reasonable amount of earning in this case should be Rs. 1,200 per month. On account of 90 per cent disability, the loss of earnings would be Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 12,000 per year. In this case the proper multiplier should be 16. Thus, counted, the compensation payable in this case is (Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 16) = rs. 1,92,000 plus Rs. 3,000 towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,500 as special diet awarded by the Tribunal, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,96,500. ( 8 ) WE are of the opinion that the amount settled is quite reasonable, particularly in view of settled position that in personal injury cases, amount of compensation should normally be higher as compared to fatal cases, since in the former cases, compensation is utilised by the victims for themselves as compared to other cases, whereas the same is utilised by the dependants. The amount of compensation shall be shared equally by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , owner and driver of truck No. MP 23-B 3740 jointly and severally along with united India Insurance Co. Ltd. and owner and driver of bus No. MP 04-F 0344. The amount will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the date of application till the date of realisation. Costs on parties. Appeal partly allowed. .