Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, M. C. C. No. 108 of 1993, dated 3-2-1994. ( 2. ) CLAIMANTS Kumari Gudia (8) and Pappu (7) are minor children of Motu alias Aslam (father ). They claimed compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/-from the appellant (MPSRTC) on account of the death of their father in the motor accident which took place on 11/12-3-1991 at about 0. 30 hrs when Bus No. MBW 1485 owned by the appellant, driven by Mohan Prasad Sharma hit the scooter CPF 4892 of the deceased with two occupants. As a result of this accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and died in Hamidia Hospital on 12-3-1991. ( 3. ) THE deceased was selling fruits, earning Rs. 2000/- per month and spared Rs. 1700/- to the family. The respondents denied the allegation stating that the bus was in standing position. With a view to overtake it and other vehicles, the deceased lost balance and dashed against the standing bus. Assuming the accident took place, it was due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased who was driving the scooter in violation of traffic rules. Compensation is exorbitant, therefore, for these reasons, claim petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) CLAIMS Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and its driver and the deceased was not responsible therefor. Case for contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has not been proved nor it is proved that the deceased was in state of intoxication. Dependency has been worked out at Rs. 600/- per month out of income of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Appellant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI P. K. Mishra, learned Counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence correctly, therefore, finding that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the bus has been arrived at, otherwise, the accident was caused by the deceased who was not driving the scooter safely with normal speed and was carrying two more persons on the scooter. He lost balance and caused the accident. He lost balance and caused the accident. We find no force in this submission for the reason that the substance of evidence clearly points out that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident in which deceased suffered injuries and died in the hospital. It is on the basis of evidence that finding has been sustained by the Claims Tribunal against the appellant. This being finding of fact should not be disturbed in appeal unless it has been arrived at irrationally and misreading the evidence. ( 6. ) NEXT question is whether just compensation has been awarded in this case. Shri P. K. Mishra submits that income of the deceased is not proved by satisfactory evidence, therefore, dependency worked out by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. Further, on being asked whether this Court can increase the compensation if it is found that the claimants have not been paid just compensation, learned Counsel submits that there arc no cross-objections in this appeal, therefore, case for enhancement of compensation be not considered. ( 7. ) GIVING consideration to the whole matter, we find that there is clear evidence in the case demonstrating that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/-per month leaving Rs. 1700/- for the family, by sale of fruits. In the absence of contrary evidence, there is no reason why this evidence should be discarded. Realising that duty of Court is to award just compensation and not what is asserted by the parties, we find it a fit case for awarding just compensation since the whole question is open for consideration in this appeal. We take that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. After making deduction of l/3rd for personal expenditure, dependency comes to Rs. 1332 per month. At the time of accident, deceased was 26 years old, therefore, multiplier of 18 is applicable in this case. This way, compensation comes to Rs. 2,87,712/- plus Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 7,000/- loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500/- loss to the estate, Rs. 2,000/funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/-towards medical expenses since the deceased died in the hospital), taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 3,04,212/ -. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal is disposed of by awarding compensation of Rs. 3,04,212/- (Rupees Three lacs four thousand two hundred twelve) to the claimants. 2,500/- loss to the estate, Rs. 2,000/funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/-towards medical expenses since the deceased died in the hospital), taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 3,04,212/ -. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal is disposed of by awarding compensation of Rs. 3,04,212/- (Rupees Three lacs four thousand two hundred twelve) to the claimants. Enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine per cent) per annum from the date of application till payment, payable by appellant MPSRTC. The compensation is distributed to the claimants as under :-- (1) Kumari Gudia (daughter) -- 50% (2) Pappu (son) -- 50%. The compensation amount be invested in FDRs with Nationalised Bank in the names of claimants Kumari Gudia (daughter) and Pappu (son) for a period of five years. The Manager of the Bank will pay interest to either or both the claimants quarterly/six monthly/yearly as per demand. In the event of more amount being required by both or cither of them during this period for purposes like cducation/marriage/medical, application shall be moved to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal which shall decide the same on merits taking into consideration that the amount of compensation is not frittered away for unjustifiable expenditures, so that they are in position to utilise the same in their life for good purpose. Costs on parties.