BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Harda in M. A. C. T. No. 32 of 1996 dated 6. 1. 2000 whereby the claim has been dismissed except award of rs. 50,000 towards 'no fault liability'. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, Satyabhama Bai (45)is the wife of late Ravindra Kumar Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation department, Tawa Canal, Harda, M. P. On 14. 5. 96, he was going to Ajnas travelling by motor cycle No. CIC 9978 by pillion rider while the vehicle was being driven by chandra Shekhar Tiwari. Unfortunately, bus No. MP 05-A 2727, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit motor cycle resulting in serious injuries to both the occupants. They fell from the motor cycle on the road. They were shifted to hospital where they were declared dead. ( 3 ) SATYABHAMA Bai filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 alleging that deceased was 51 years old at the time of accident, was only bread-earner of the family and on account of his death, the family is going to suffer in future. It is also alleged that vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently otherwise accident would not have taken place and that the vehicle (bus) was insured with the New india Assurance Co. Ltd. , Third Line, itarsi. Respondents contested the claim. Driver of the bus alleged that occupants of motor cycle were intoxicated, therefore, they committed the accident. Consequently, he was not liable to pay the compensation. Insurance company has stated breach of policy conditions, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. Driver and owner of the vehicle do not support the defence either by appearing as witnesses in their defence or by producing any other evidence. Claimant appeared to support the claim. She states that the deceased was 51 years old at the time of accident. He was going on duty on the motor cycle driven by Chandra Shekhar Tiwari and the same was hit by the bus resulting in the death of both the occupants. At the time of accident, deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 6,893 per month. Pay slip in support of this was filed. She states that she was told by officials of her husband's department that the motor cycle was hit by the bus. Sanjay Pawar, AW 2, is an eyewitness to the occurrence. At the time of accident, deceased was receiving salary of Rs. 6,893 per month. Pay slip in support of this was filed. She states that she was told by officials of her husband's department that the motor cycle was hit by the bus. Sanjay Pawar, AW 2, is an eyewitness to the occurrence. He states that bus came from opposite side and collided with the motor cycle. The driver of the bus got down and ran away. Deceased suffered injuries and fell down. They were groaning in pain. Departmental vehicle came within 2/3 minutes, took them to hospital where they were declared dead. From the statement of witnesses, certain things are very clear. ( 4 ) SATYABHAMA Bai comes to know about the taking place of accident from the officials of her husband's Department within 2-3 minutes of the occurrence. On spot, these officials had come to know how the accident had taken place. This version finds corroboration from the eyewitness Sanjay Pawar, AW 2, who also states that bus collided with the motor cycle. The driver of the bus got down and ran away, which means he was at fault, otherwise he should have stayed there and helped in taking the injured to the hospital. Further, the way the accident has taken place shows that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus. He should have brought down the speed and had he done so, accident could have been avoided. On highway, higher duty is cast on drivers of heavy vehicles to drive them carefully and cautiously so that accidents with light vehicles, mopeds, carts, etc. , are avoided. But this care has not been taken by the driver Of the bus in this case. The driver of the bus moved the bus with speed resulting in accident. Defence taken by owner and driver of the bus was that occupants of motor cycle were intoxicated but they did not appear to defend themselves. The defence that the deceased were intoxicated is nowhere the case nor found in post-mortem. Consequently, irresistible conclusion is that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by bus driver is established and, therefore, finding recorded by claims Tribunal is set aside. ( 5 ) NEXT question is, to what compensation satyabhama Bai is entitled. Deceased was receiving Rs. 6,893 per month, say rs. 6,900. Consequently, irresistible conclusion is that the rash and negligent driving of the bus by bus driver is established and, therefore, finding recorded by claims Tribunal is set aside. ( 5 ) NEXT question is, to what compensation satyabhama Bai is entitled. Deceased was receiving Rs. 6,893 per month, say rs. 6,900. Out of it, he must be spending 1/3rd on himself, leaving the rest to the family. 2/3rd of Rs. 6,900 is Rs. 4,600. Therefore, compensation payable in this case works out to Rs. 6,26,700 (Rs. 4,600 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 6,07,200 + Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 as solatium, Rs. 2,500 towards loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses = Rs. 6,26,700 ). ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6. 1. 2000 is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,26,700 (rupees six lakhs, twenty-six thousand, seven hundred) from the respondents jointly and severally payable with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of application 4. 12. 1996 till the date of payment. While making payment of compensation, the amount of Rs. 50,000 already paid to the claimants shall be deducted. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .