JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.8.96 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,48,800/- in favour of claimant-respondents No. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against appellants and its driver respondent No. 7 Jai Ram. 2. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. 3. On the receipt of notice of appeal on admission the claimants filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking enhancement of award. 4. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 13,31,000/- inter alia stating therein that on 31.5.93 at about 9.40 a.m., while deceased Ram Manohar was boarding the Bus No. MKI- 1612, he fell down from the Bus due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver respondent No. 7 and was run over by the rear wheel of the said bus. Ram Manohar sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to injuries. The claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased had filed a claim petition claiming compensation as noticed above. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment impugned and record of the Tribunal and evaluated the evidence on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was the deceased himself responsible for the said accident as he tried to board the bus when it was in motion and door of the bus was closed from inside and, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in holding the driver of the bus liable for the said accident. It was next contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 7. The factum of accident was not disputed by the appellants and respondent No. 7 in their written statement, however, a plea was raised that the deceased was trying to board the bus when it was moving and, therefore, he himself was responsible for his death. 8. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the pleadings of the parties. 9. 8. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the pleadings of the parties. 9. The claimants produced P.W. 1 Smt. Manju, P.W. 2 Kantilal, P.W. 3 Ram Singh, P.W. 4 Gopilal and P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra in support of their claim. The respondents examined D.W. 1 Jai Ram driver of the bus and D.W. 2 Mangilal the conductor of the said bus. 10. P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra is an eye witness of the occurrence. He stated on oath before the Tribunal that on 31.5.93 at about 9.30 a.m., he wanted to go to Mandsaur. He boarded the bus first and thereafter Ram Manohar followed him to board the bus. When Ram Manohar entered into the bus, the conductor of the bus closed the door of the bus and at that time the driver of the bus suddenly applied the brake and due to the jerk the door of the bus got opened and deceased Ram Manohar who was standing near to door fell down and was run over by the said bus. Due to this accident Ram Manohar succumbed to injuries. He further stated that he Knew Ram Manohar as he was doing the work of weighing the food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh and used to earn about Rs. 100/- per day and as such his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. P.W. 3 Ram Singh also made similar statement. He stated that deceased Ram Manohar was doing work of weighing food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh and used to earn Rs. 80/- per day and on average his income was Rs. 100/- per day. This witness was also doing the similar job in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh. P.W. 2 Kantilal also made similar statement and stated that the deceased was doing the work of weighing food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi and used to get about Rs. 100/- per day and as such his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month. P.W. 1 Smt. Manju wife of the deceased also made a similar statement that at the relevant time of the accident his husband was doing the work of weighing food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh and his daily income was Rs. 100/-. She also stated that all the claimants are dependent on the income of the deceased. P.W. 1 Smt. Manju wife of the deceased also made a similar statement that at the relevant time of the accident his husband was doing the work of weighing food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh and his daily income was Rs. 100/-. She also stated that all the claimants are dependent on the income of the deceased. She has tendered in evidence the F.I.R. Exhibit 1, charge sheet Exhibit 2, site map Exhibit 3 and post mortem report Exhibit 4 etc. 11. In rebuttal D.W. 1 Jai Ram, driver and D.W. 2 Mangilal the conductor of the said bus appeared before the Tribunal. D.W. 1 Jai Ram stated that he stopped the bus opposite to Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh and thereafter again started the bus. The bus was moving at slow speed and at that time a passenger got boarded in the bus and was standing on the foot rest. He fell down due to jerk and was crushed by rear wheel of the said bus. When he came to know that the passenger fell down and has been run over by the wheel of the bus, he stopped the bus. D.W. 2 Mangilal, conductor of the said bus also made similar statement that the said bus was stopped opposite to Nagar Palika, Pratapgarh, suddenly a passenger boarded in the bus and after some time he noticed that the passenger fell down from the bus and the accident took place. Soon after this accident one Satyanarain Rathi lodged a report with police Exhibit 1. After the investigation police filed charge sheet Exhibit 2 for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Post-mortem report Exhibit 4, reveals that at that relevant time the age of deceased was 32 years. A licence Exhibit 8 issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh has been placed on record by the claimants. 12. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective reached to the conclusion that said accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 7. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based on the evidence of the independent eye witness. P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra is an independent eye witness, who boarded the said bus first and in the same sequence the deceased Ram Manohar also boarded in the said bus. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based on the evidence of the independent eye witness. P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra is an independent eye witness, who boarded the said bus first and in the same sequence the deceased Ram Manohar also boarded in the said bus. D.W. 1 Jai Ram and D.W. 2 Mangilal are the employees of the Corporation and are interested witnesses, moreso these witnesses did not come with correct version of the occurrence and they have tried to make out a case otherwise when the door of the bus was closed and thereafter the deceased was trying to board the bus without opening door, then, there was no possibility for him to stand on foot rest. The theory of standing on foot rest developed by the defence witnesses is not acceptable. The Tribunal has rightly relied on independent eye witness and preferred his evidence as against two interested witnesses produced by the Corporation. 13. Thus evidence of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver cannot be said to the perverse. I find no reason to take a different view than one taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly findings on issues No. 1 and 4 are hereby affirmed. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that looking to the age and income of the deceased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive, on the contrary it is on lower side and, therefore, the claimants seek enhancement. 15. From the statement of P.W. 1 Smt. Manju and post-mortem report Exhibit 4, it is established that at the relevant time of accident the deceased Ram Manohar was between 30 to 35 years of age. This fact was specifically pleaded in the claim petition and the Corporation and its driver did not specifically deny in their written statement. Thus, it is established that the deceased was about 30 to 35 years of age. It is further established by the statements of P.W. 1 Smt. Manju, P.W. 2 Ram Singh and P.W. 4 Gopilal that at the relevant time he was engaged in weighing food grains and used to earn Rs. 100/- per day. This fact is corroborated by licence Exhibit 8 issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh. He was an authorised licensee to do the work of weighing food grains in the said Mandi. 100/- per day. This fact is corroborated by licence Exhibit 8 issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh. He was an authorised licensee to do the work of weighing food grains in the said Mandi. The evidence of claimants remain uncontroverted. 16. While deciding the issue of quantum the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that daily income of deceased was Rs. 80/- and as such his monthly income is Rs. 2,400/- out of which he used to spend 1 /3 as his personal expenses and determined the dependency at Rs. 1,500/- per month. The Tribunal failed to take into account the future prospects. It is settled law that while computing compensation, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should be augmented in terms of money. 17. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamrna Thomas and Others 1994 ACJ (SC) 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "Of course, the future Prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand." 18. Thus taking into account the future prospects of the deceased his monthly income can safely be determined as Rs. 3,500/- per month. Out of this amount Rs. 1,300/- deducted on account of personal living expenses of the deceased himself. Thus, total monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,200/- and as such annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,200/-x 12 = Rs. 26,400/- An appropriate multiplier for age group of 30 years to 35 years is 16 years. Thus the amount works out to Rs. 26,400 X 16 = Rs. 4,22,400/-. 19. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- for consortium, love and affection etc. In my considered opinion, this is on higher side. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection etc. and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, on proper computation total compensation works out to Rs. 4,52,000/- which is almost near about to that of awarded by the Tribunal. 20. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered only when the compensation awarded is too low or inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, on proper computation total compensation works out to Rs. 4,52,000/- which is almost near about to that of awarded by the Tribunal. 20. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered only when the compensation awarded is too low or inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case compensation of Rs. 4,48,800/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too low or too excessive. In my considered view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence needs no interference. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Corporation as well as the cross-objection filed by the claimants. Consequently, the appeal as well as the cross objection are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******