JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, and cross objection, have been filed against the 1 judgment and award of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, dated 30.8.1996 decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-. 2. Facts of the case are that on 13.2.1994, at about 1.15 A.M. at Bus Stand Sujangarh, the delinquent bus No. RJ 14P-3145, which was going from Anupgarh to Jaipur, had come, and after the deceased Fakir Chand had alighted the bus, the driver abruptly put the bus in reverse gear, as a result of which, the deceased was run over by the front tyre, and received both external, and internal injuries, and died in the hospital. 3. According to the claim petition, the deceased was earning about Rupees 4000/- per month by running two Manihari shops, and was claimed to be 42 years of age. On this basis a total claim of Rs.40,000/- was filed. 4. The Corporation contested the claim by submitting the reply, alleging that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver, rather, it was victim himself, who by his mistake. was run over by the bus. The driver also is filed a separate written statement, contending that though, he was driver, but at the time of accident bus was driven by one Suresh Chandra. He stated that there were two drivers in the bus, and in the first shift, he drove the bus upto Doongargarh, and thereafter, Suresh was the driver. The other objections, regarding limitation, and misjoinder of parties, were also taken. 5. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 1, about negligence in favour of the claimant, deciding issue No. 2, it was found that the bus was being driven by the defendant No. 2 Revat Singh, during the course of employment of defendant No. 1 Corporation, deciding issue No. 4, it was held that, no evidence has been led by the Corporation, to substantiate the objections, and while deciding issue No. 3, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2000/- per month, present dependency of the family was assessed at Rs.1350/-. Following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court it Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivendrum v. Smt. Sushma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 163 , and considering the future prospects the dependency was held to be required to be assessed at Rs 2500/- per month, considering the age of the deceased to be 42, the multiplier of 9 was employed, and the compensation under the head of loss of income, was assessed at Rs.2,70,000/-. Then, Rs.15,000/- were awarded collectively to the son, three minor daughters, and the widow, for the loss of consortium, and loss of love and affection etc., ane Rs.50001- were awarded for performance c' last rites. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, the only contention raised on the of the Corporation was that, the deceased had already alighted from the E JS, and thereafter, when the bus was being taken on the platform but pitting it in the reverse gear, if the deceased happened to come under the BJS, and being run over, it cannot be said that there was any negligence, on the part of the bus driver. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the finding on negligence, and substantiating the cross-objections, it was contended that, considering the job of the deceased, the multiplier employed is grossly inadequate. It was also contended that the amount, awarded for 103S of consortium and loss of love and affection to the children, is insultingly low. It was contended that there is clear evidence on record, produced by the claimants, to the effect that the deceased was carrying on shops of Manihari wherefrom, he was earning a monthly income of Rs.5000-6000 per month, and since there is no effective cross-examination on the side of the defendants, and no evidence has been led to controvert the claimants evidence, the learned Tribunal was in error in assessing the income of the deceased, to be Rs.2000/- per month only. According to the learned counsel the reasoning given by the learned trial Court are fanciful, and not supported by material on record. 8. I have considered the submissions, and have perused the record. 9. According to the learned counsel the reasoning given by the learned trial Court are fanciful, and not supported by material on record. 8. I have considered the submissions, and have perused the record. 9. A look at the written statement, filed on behalf of the Corporation, shows that in para it was pleaded that, the accident occurring in the process of vehicle being taken in the reverse gear itself shows that the deceased was at fault, as it cannot be expected of a driver, sitting on the right side to see the person standing of the other side of the vehicle, and therefore, the Corporation is not liable. 10. As noticed above, the driver. defendant No. 2 has adopted the stand of himself not driving the vehicle, though in para 9 of the written statement of the Corporation, the description of the driver has been admitted to be correct. 11. Thus, the result is that happening of the accident, the accident happening in the process of the bus being taken in the reverse gear, and the deceased having been run over by the Bus, and the Bus being driven by the defendant No. 2, stands to be admitted position. In that view of the matter, the only question is, as to whether in the circumstances of the case, the driver had taken requisite care and caution, or not, so as to attribute negligence, on the part of the driver in driving the bus. 12. Admittedly, the place of accident is Bus Stand, and admittedly, the victim had alighted from the bus. True it is that, the placement of the driver is, on the right hand side front seat, and sitting at the place he cannot see as to what is happening on the left side of the Bus, outside the Bus, but then the fact that the Bus was at the Bus Stand, which is expected to be a place, where the persons, whether boarding, or alighting, in or from the Bus in question, or other passengers, are expected to be at the place. In that view of the matter, when the Bus has other staff, like Conductor, if the Bus was to be taken in reverse gear for being brought at the platform, it was necessary to have the assistance of the Conductor, or any other staff, to make sure that in that process, other persons do not become a casualty. On the basis of common experience, it was to be comprehended that on the platforms of the Bus Stand also, the passengers keep sitting, along with their belongings, and the bus being brought at the platform is supposed to be brought, in such a manner that ensures reasonable safety. Where the bus is moving at a place, where public is expected to be available, the bus driver is required to be more cautious. Here is a case, where the bus was enroute Anupgarh to Jaipur. and the passengers were alighting at the bus stand Sujangarh. On that occasion, the availability of Bus Conductor is a natural phenomenon, and, therefore, if the bus was being driven in the reverse gear, the driver and conductor were supposed to be in communication with each other, so as to ensure a safe movement of the bus in the reverse gear. 13. Admittedly, it is not the case that any such precaution was taken by the bus driver. So much so, that the defendants had even not led any evidence, even to explain the sequence of events, to have occurred in such a manner, may be bereft of the element of negligence on their part. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Trial Court, on the question of negligence, does not require any interference. Thus. the appeal filed by the appellant has no force. 14. Coming to the cross-objections, in the claim petition, it has been pleaded that, the deceased was running Manihari business, and was operating two shops, it was also alleged that, he was earning Rs.40001- per 5 month, was 42 years of age, and looking to his physic, he was expected to work for another 20 years, he would have expanded the business and income. Then, in sub-para 2, compensation has been claimed for loss of consortium to the widow, love and affection to the son and minor daughters. Likewise, Rs. Then, in sub-para 2, compensation has been claimed for loss of consortium to the widow, love and affection to the son and minor daughters. Likewise, Rs. 25,000/- has been claimed for expenses incurred in earring the to victim to the hospital, and treatment, so also in performance of last rites. In reply, all that has been pleaded is that. the amount has been claimed arbitrarily, and without any basis. 15. In that background, I may now proceed to consider the evidence led on behalf of the claimants on record. AW1 Rajkumar, the son of the victim has deposed that the deceased was having Manihari shops, one at Sujangarh, and other at Ladnu, and therefrom, was earning around 4500 - 5000 per month. In cross-examination he has deposed that out of two shops, he is operating one shop, the other is being run by maternal, uncle Navratan, who has been employed at a salary of Rs.800/- per month. He has also deposed that now the income being derived from these shops in 3500-4000 per month. He has also admitted that he had left pursuing studies, since one year prior to the death of victim. He has then further deposed in cross-examination that at that time. he had started learning job. Then, next witness is AW2 Maine., the widow. She has deposed that her husband was earning Rs.5000/- per month from the Manihari shop. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her son had left his education after studying 8th standards, and since then, he joined his father on the shop, and even now, he is looking after the shop. She has further deposed that, what is being earned by Rajkumar is not known to her, because she is illiterate. The third witness AW3 has not stated anything in this regard. Thus, so far the evidence of AW2 is concerned, though, she has deposed that her husband was earning Rs.5000 per month, but then, in cross-examination, she could not stand the testimony, as on being asked about the present income of the son, she has pleaded ignorance on the ground of being illiterate. Thus, ignorance on the basis of illiteracy is very much applicable to the statement given in the examination in chief, about the husband's income as well. Then remains, the evidence of AVV1. Thus, ignorance on the basis of illiteracy is very much applicable to the statement given in the examination in chief, about the husband's income as well. Then remains, the evidence of AVV1. Even from his evidence, it is clear that the shops are running, and now income from these shops is Rs.3500-4000 per month, while the income of the father was 4500-5000. So far as the future expansion of the business is concerned, both the witnesses have not said a word in this regard. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the dependency assessed by the earned Tribunal is inadequate. As noticed above, the appellant has not assailed the finding on question of quantum, and therefore, now only thing to be seen is, as to whether the dependency assessed is inadequate. The question then is about the multiplier. Even according to the learned Tribunal, the deceased was 42 years of age, in that view of the matter, the multiplier of 9, as employed by the learned Tribunal, is grossly inadequate. The learned counsel for the appellant desired me to apply the multiplier, as provided in second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act. However, it is significant to note, that in the Schedule, the calculation has been contemplated to be made on the basis of the income of the deceased, as it existed at the time of accident, while in the present case the learned Tribunal calculated the dependency on the basis of Sushma Thomas's case, where taking into account the future prospects, despite the present dependency having been assessed at Rs.1350/-, for the purpose of multiplier, the dependency has been considered at Rs.2500/- per month. In that view of the matter it cannot be said on the face of the evidence of AW1 and 2 that the dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate. 16. In that view of the matter. I am not inclined to apply the multiplier. as provided in the Second Schedule, in the present case, in view of the fact to that the multiplier is not sought to be applied on the basis of the present income of the deceased. However, in the totality of circumstances, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal, being 9. is of course, grossly inadequate, and in my view, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 12. However, in the totality of circumstances, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal, being 9. is of course, grossly inadequate, and in my view, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 12. Likewise, the amount of consortium awarded as consolidated figure of Rs.15000/-, also requires interference. In my view, each of the claimants should be awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation for love and affection and/or consortium. 17. Thus, the amount awarded by the learned trial Court being Rs.2,70,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency is increased to Rs.3,60,000/-. Likewise' the amount of Rs.15,000 awarded for loss of love and affection/consortium is increased to Rs.25,000/-. 18. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimant are allowed in the manner that the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- awarded, as compensation for loss of income is increased to Rs.3,60,000/-, and the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded, as compensation for loss of love and affection is increased to Rs.25,0001-. All other stipulations and directions in the impugned award are maintained. The parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed-Cross Objection Allowed. *******