JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13-8-1993 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Civil Misc. Case No. 24 of 1992 by which, the Tribunal awarded compensation in the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the respondent-claimants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants') and against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and its driver (respondent No. 5). 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the appellant-Corporation has filed this appeal assailing the finding of negligence of its driver (respondent No. 5) as also the quantum of compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel Mr. B. S. Bhati appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and perused the record of the case. 4. A claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal who are parents, widow and minor daughter of the deceased-Mani Lal who died on 13-4-1991 due to motor vehicle accident at the age of 35 years. The case of claimants as pleaded was that on 13-4-1991 at about 11.00 a.m. while deceased-Manilal was coming on his motor cycle towards Bedwa bus stand, at that relevant time, the bus bearing No. RSB 4091 owned by the Corporation came from opposite direction being driven at a great speed rashly and negligently by its driver Shahbas Khan (respondent No. 6) hit the motor cycle and its rider. Due to this accident, Manilal sustained severe injuries and succumbed injuries instantenously. A report of this occurrence was promptly lodged at Police Station, Gaddi by P.W. 3 Ambalal. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against respondent No. 6 Shahbas Khan (driver of the vehicle) in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara for the offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A, I.P.C. (Ex. 4). 5. It was averred that at the relevant time, deceased-Manilal was 35 years' of age and he was welder. Prior to this accident, he was in the Middle East at Kuwait and was engaged in welding work but due to crises in Kuwait, he came back to his native place and started the work of weldor and as such, his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. Prior to this accident, he was in the Middle East at Kuwait and was engaged in welding work but due to crises in Kuwait, he came back to his native place and started the work of weldor and as such, his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. It was also pleaded that the claimants were wholly dependent on his income and had he not died due to the aforesaid accident, he would have survived up to the age of 70 years and would have contributed his earning to the claimants. The compensation was claimed for damages of motor cycle and under various heads, in all for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 6. The appellant-Corporation filed reply but respondent No. 6 (driver of the bus Shahbas Khan) died not file any reply to the claim petition. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues and held trial of the case. The claimants examined P.W. 1 Mst. Manjula (widow of the deceased-Manilal), P.W. 2 Nanulal (father of the deceased), P.W. 3 Amba Lal (an eye-witness of the occurrence) and P.W. 4 Smt. Kastoori (mother of the deceased). The claimants have filed certified copies of the police investigation papers, Ex. 1, F.I.R., Ex. 2 Site Note and Site Inspection, Ex. 3 post-mortem report Ex. 4 charge-sheet and Ex. 5 passport of the deceased. In rebuttal, respondent No. 6 got himself examined as D.W. 1. 8. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal vide judgment and award impugned, decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the Corporation and its driver (respondent 6), who were original non-applicants before the Tribunal and held that the accident occurred as a result of driving the bus rashly and negligently by the driver (respondent No. 6). 9. Issue No. 3 is inter-linked with issue No. 1 and while deciding Issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 6. Issue No. 3 was decided against the Corporation and its driver (respondent No. 6). 10. Issue No. 2 relates to quantum of compensation. While deciding this issue, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the claimant and came to the conclusion that before accident, the deceased was at Kuwait and he was earning about Rs. 4000 to 5000/- per month. Issue No. 3 was decided against the Corporation and its driver (respondent No. 6). 10. Issue No. 2 relates to quantum of compensation. While deciding this issue, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the claimant and came to the conclusion that before accident, the deceased was at Kuwait and he was earning about Rs. 4000 to 5000/- per month. The Tribunal further held that the deceased had a welding shop at Partapur. The Tribunal further held that the claimant's evidence remained unrebutted. On this specific finding, the Tribunal determined monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 1400 to 1500/- per month and monthly dependency of the claimant to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- (sic) to Rs. 9,000 (sic) per month and as such, the annual dependency determined to be Rupees 10,000/-. This was multiplied by 25 purchase (sic) factor and as such loss of income was computed to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of company and consortium to the widow of the deceased and Rs. 2,500/- each of the mother, latheand Rs. 5,000/- for minor daughter for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 3,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. ?,000/ for damages to the motor cycle and as such, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition. 11. Learned counsel Mr. B. S. Bhati appearing on behalf of the Corporation contended that it was the deceased himself who was negligent in driving the Motor Cycle. He relied upon the statement of P.W. 6 Shahbas Khan, driver of the bus. He next contended that the Tribunal fell in error while computing compensation by applying multiplier of 25. He also contended that now the multiplier does not exceed 18 years purchase factor. I have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. 12. The age and occupation of the deceased, was specifically pleaded in paras 3 and 4 of the claim petition. The appellant-Corporation in the written statement has not specifically denied these facts. The Corporation merely denied these facts for want of knowledge which is no denial in the eye of law. 12. The age and occupation of the deceased, was specifically pleaded in paras 3 and 4 of the claim petition. The appellant-Corporation in the written statement has not specifically denied these facts. The Corporation merely denied these facts for want of knowledge which is no denial in the eye of law. Order 8, R. 5, C.P.C. provides specific denial (i) every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. In view of this provisions, it is clear that every fact has to be specifically denied and any evasive reply cannot be said to be denial in the eye of law and it amounts to implied admission. Thus, the fact pleaded by the claimant in paras 3 and 4 of the claim petition with regard to the age and occupation of the deceased stands admitted by the Corporation. P.W. 1 Mst. Manjula widow of deceased-Manilal made the statement on oath before the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the age of her husband was 34 years and prior to this accident, her husband was in Middle East in Kuwait and his monthly earning was Rs. 10,000/- per month but due to crises in the Middle East at Kuwait, he came back to his native place i.e. village Partapur Dist. Banswara and started to run welding shop and from the welding shop, his earning was Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. Had he not died in the said accident, he would have contributed in his life time Rs. 7 lacs to the claimants. This witness further deposed that due to tragic death of her husband, she has been deprived of his company and consortium for ever as she has to lead the life as widow. Her entire future has been ruined ano parents of the deceased and her minor daughter have been deprived of love and affection. She ha:, proved the amount claimed in the claim petition by her statement including damages to the motor cycle. She has tendered in evidence the FIR (Ex. 1), Site note and Site inspection (Ex. 2), post-mortem report (Ex. 3), charge-sheet (Ex. 4) and passport of the deceased (Ex. 5). Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elucited from the testimony. She ha:, proved the amount claimed in the claim petition by her statement including damages to the motor cycle. She has tendered in evidence the FIR (Ex. 1), Site note and Site inspection (Ex. 2), post-mortem report (Ex. 3), charge-sheet (Ex. 4) and passport of the deceased (Ex. 5). Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elucited from the testimony. This witness was consistent in her statement as to the income of her husband that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and used to send Rs. 5,000/- per month to the claimants. While he was at Kuwait, a suggestion was given to this witness that her husband was earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, which was denied by this witness, saying that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. This witness further stated that due to crises in the middle east, her husband came to his native place Partapur and started running a welding shop from which he used to earn Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. 13. P.W. 2 Nanu Lal, father of the deceased who also made similar statement with regard to the age and income of the deceased. He made statement on oath before the Tribunal that his son was 34 years of age and he was serving in Kuwait. He used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month and due to crises in the middle east, he came back to his native place Partapur and started to run welding shop by which he used to earn Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. He also stated that the claimants were wholly dependent on his income and had he not died, he would have contributed at least Rs. 7 lacs but due to tragic death, they have been deprived of his income and, love and affection as also the widow of the deceased has also been deprived of consortium for ever. 14. P.W. 4 Mst. Kastoori, mother of the deceased has also made a similar statement before the Tribunal. Despite the lengthy cross-examination the testimony of these three witnesses with regard to the age and income of the deceased as also the contribution to the claimants remained unshaken. 15. P.W. 3 Amba Lal is an eye-witness of the occurrence, This witness has promptly loged the FIR (Ex. 1) at the Police Station, Gaddi soon after the accident. Despite the lengthy cross-examination the testimony of these three witnesses with regard to the age and income of the deceased as also the contribution to the claimants remained unshaken. 15. P.W. 3 Amba Lal is an eye-witness of the occurrence, This witness has promptly loged the FIR (Ex. 1) at the Police Station, Gaddi soon after the accident. He clearly stated on oath that on 13-4-1991, while he was sitting at Bedwa bus stand, Partapur at about 11.00 a.m. Manilal was going on motor cycle towards Partapur Bus Stand, at that time, a bus owned by the Corporation bearing No. RSB 4091 suddenly came to its wrong side of the road and hit hie motor cycle and its rider Manilal. Due to this accident, Manilal sustained head injury and succurnbed to injuries injuries instantenously. This witness further stated that he lodged the FIR (Ex. 1) at the police station. He has proved the FIR (Ex. 1) and postmortem report (Ex. 3). This witness further stated on oath that the deceased was serving at Kuwait but due to crises in Middle East, he came back to his native place i.e. Partapur and started to run welding shop. The testimony of this witness remained unshaken despite the lengthy cross-examination. 16. D.W. 1 Shahbas Khan, driver of the offending bus got himself examined wherein he has admitted that he was driving the bus on 13-4-1991 which was owned by the Corporation. He deposed that he stopped the bus and it was the deceased who collided with the stationary bus and as such, he has denied the negligency. This witness admitted that after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him, there is specific pleading and evidence of the claimants with regard to rash and negligency of the driver of the offending bus. P.W. 3 Amba Lai is an independent eye-witness. His presence on the spot has not been disputed. Not only this, he promptly lodged the FIR (Ex. 1) at the police station, Gaddi wherein he has specifically mentioned that at the relevant time, the driver of the offending bus was driving the bus with a great speed and bus was out of his control. His presence on the spot has not been disputed. Not only this, he promptly lodged the FIR (Ex. 1) at the police station, Gaddi wherein he has specifically mentioned that at the relevant time, the driver of the offending bus was driving the bus with a great speed and bus was out of his control. Manilal was proceeding on his Motor Cycle on its correct side of the road and despite this, the bus driver dashed against him resulting thereby that the Motor Cycle and its rider were crushed underneath of the front wheel of the bus and there was heavy bleeding from the skull and other parts of the body of the Manilal and he died on the spot. Site note and site inspection memo (Ex, 2) was prepared by the investigating agency soon after the occurrence and it was noticed by the Investigating Officer that the Motor Cycle was lying beneath the front wheel of the bus, as such, the claimants' evidence with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus is consistent. D.W. 1 Shahbas Khan driver of the offending bus has not filed any written statement, as such, the facts pleaded by the claimants have not been denied. The stand taken by D.W. 1 Shahbas Khan further appears to be totally incorrect, Inasmuch as, he stated that it was stationary bus and the deceased dashed against it whereas from FIR (Ex. if, site note and site inspection memo (Ex. 2) and post-mortem report (Ex. 3) as also from the statement of P.W. 3 Amba Lal, it clearly establishes that the Motor Cycle of the deceased was found beneath tho front wheel of the bus and it could not be said that the bus was stationary. Moreso, D.W. 1 Shahbas Khan is an interested witness. 17. In the instant case, P.W. 3 Amba lal is an uninterested witness he has Saw Machine at Sedwa Bus Stand and at the relevant time, he was sitting at Bedwa Bus stand, Partapur at a distance of about 50 feels away from the place of occurrence. There is nothing on record to show that he was trying to help to the claimants in any manner or was untruthful witness. There is nothing on record to show that he was trying to help to the claimants in any manner or was untruthful witness. On the other hand, the accident took place at 11.00 a.m. on 13-4-1991 and he promptly lodged the FIR at the police station, Gaddi within 15 minutes narrating the occurrence in detail and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly relied upon the testimony of this witness corroborated with the documents Exs. 1 to 4. 18. The Corporation produced D.W. 1 Shahbas Khan driver of the offending bus who is its employee and is interested witness before the Tribunal and, therefore, the statement of P.W.3 need to be preferred. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation in this regard and, therefore, the findings on issues No. 1 and 3 are affirmed. 20. It was contended by the Corporation that the amount of compensation awarded Is on higher side. There is specific evidence of the claimants with regard to age and income of the deceased as also the dependency of the claimants. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was not serving at Kuwait in Middle East. There is also nothing on record that prior to accident, he came back from Kuwait to his native place due to crises in the Middle East and started to run welding shop at Partapur. This has been established by the testimony of widow, parents of the deceased and corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 3 Ambalal. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1400/- to Rs. 1500/- without there being any basis as against the established income of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. Similarly, the annual dependency of Rs. 10,000/- determined by the Tribunal is also without any basis. The Tribunal has not assigned any justifiable reason for not believing the claimants' case which is consistent to its pleadings and evidence. The deceased was a young person of 34-35 years of age as established from the materials available on record. The claimants have also placed on record the passport (Ex. 5), In which, his profession is mentioned as welder. The Tribunal has not assigned any justifiable reason for not believing the claimants' case which is consistent to its pleadings and evidence. The deceased was a young person of 34-35 years of age as established from the materials available on record. The claimants have also placed on record the passport (Ex. 5), In which, his profession is mentioned as welder. From perusal of the copy of the passport, it appears that the deceased remained at Kuwait from 6-9-1988 to 8- 9-1990 and his passport and Visa were extended from time to time from the Embassy concerned. This fully establishes the case of the claimants and it is also settled law that the income which the deceased used to make at the time of accident would not have frozen for all time to come. The future prospects of advancement in life and career and also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicant, the Tribunal has not taken into account even future prospects of the deceased if the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 4000/- per month as provided by the claimants' evidence and by taking future prospects into account, which is required to be sounded in terms of money, the monthly income of the deceased would have not been less than Rs. 8,000/- per month and accordingly the dependency of the claimants would have been at least Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month and as such, the annual dependency would have come to Rs. 70,000/- and if the correct multiplier of 17 is applied then amount would come much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is settled law that in appeal, interference is made with quantum of compensation only on the ground of adequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case, the amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- is very much on lower side and cannot be said to be too excessive and, therefore, in my considered opinion, it is not at all a fit case to interfere with the award impugned. 21. No other point was pressed into service before me. 22. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******