Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 211.1991 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 96/1990 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondents with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount . 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the wife of claimant-respondent No. 1 and mother of claimant-respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e., Smt. Jyoti, aged 40 years, was travelling in Bus No. RJB-1697 of Anil Travels from Keshariyaji to Salumber. It was alleged in the claim petition that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed by Dadu-the driver. When the bus reached near Rathore Bus Stand situated near Pooliya No. 96/2, the bus hit an Ox, who died on the spot. Due to this collision, the gate of the bus opened and Smt. Jyoti fell down on the road and got crushed under the wheel of bus and succumbed to her injuries. It was alleged in the claim petition that she was earning Rs. 1,000/-per month by doing labour work in agricultural fields. Claimant-respondent No. 1 has been deprived of his marital life, as also the services of house-keeping, which his wife used to perform for him and his children. The claimant-respondents No. 2 to 4 have been deprived of love and affection of their mother. It was further stated that they suffered loss of earnings, as also suffered mental pain and agony. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-under different heads. 3. A reply to the claim petition was filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, wherein the allegations levelled in the claim petition were denied and took a stand that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-only under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver and owner of the bus, namely, Dadu and Kantilal also submitted a joint reply denying all the averments made in the claim petition. Further it was stated that the bus was insured and if any liability for compensation arises, then the Insurance Company will be responsible for the same. 4. The driver and owner of the bus, namely, Dadu and Kantilal also submitted a joint reply denying all the averments made in the claim petition. Further it was stated that the bus was insured and if any liability for compensation arises, then the Insurance Company will be responsible for the same. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- Þ¼1½ vk;k fnukad 15-06-1988 dks Jherh T;ksfr dh e`R;q foi{kh uEcj ,d Jh nknw ds }kjk okgu ua- vkj-ts-ch- 1697 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ \ ¼2½ vk;k izkFkhZx.k Dyse eascrkbZ xbZ jkf k :i;s 6]00]000@& :i;s ;k vU; dksbZ jkf k izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls ikus ds vf /kdkjh gSa] ;fn gS rks fdruh o fdl&fdl ls \ ¼3½ D;k foi{kh chek dEiuh }kjk tokcnkos easmBkbZ xbZ vkifÙk;kas dsvk/kkj ij chek dEiuh dk nkf ;Ro ugha gS ] ¼4½ nknjlh \ 5. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, AW. 1 Hemta and AW. 2 Gauttam were examined and documents, namely, FIR (Exhibit-1), Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-2), charge-sheet (Exhibit-3), site-map (Exhibit-4), MTO Report (Exhibit-5), Inquest Report (Exhibit-6) and Seizure Report of bus (Exhibit-7) were produced and got exhibited. In defence, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the statement of NAW-1 Pradeep Nagpal was recorded and documents, namely, Comprehensive Policy (Exhibit D/1) and Cover-note (Exhibit D/2) were produced and got exhibited. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus thereby resulting into death of Smt. Jyoti and awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-only as compensation in favour of the claimants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. The learned Tribunal further also held the Insurance Company responsible for the payment of compensation amount, as determined aforesaid. 7. The Insurance Company being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgement and Award dated 211.1991, has preferred the instant appeal. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, claimant-respondents filed their cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22, CPC, stating therein that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was not just and reasonable and prayed that the same be modified and enhanced to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/-with interest, as claimed in the claim petition. 9. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, claimant-respondents filed their cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22, CPC, stating therein that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was not just and reasonable and prayed that the same be modified and enhanced to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/-with interest, as claimed in the claim petition. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant again submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the material and the contentions raised by the Insurance Company. It was contended that NAW-1 Pradeep Nagpal was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company and he deposed that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited. True copy of policy and cover-note were also produced on record. It was also stated that admittedly the deceased was a passenger in the bus and in that case the maximum liability of the Insurance Company was upto Rs. 15,000/-only, but the learned Tribunal held the appellant responsible for paying the total amount of compensation. As such, the Judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal was liable to be quashed and the appeal may be allowed. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents refuted the contentions raised by the Insurance Company. It was submitted that it was admitted by the Insurance Company that the bus was insured with them but they have failed to prove that their liability was limited. It was urged that neither the original policy has been called or produced nor the policy has been proved. NAW-1 Pradeep Nagpal has not been able to prove the stand taken by the Insurance Company and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held them responsible for payment of the compensation amount. 12. The learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded only a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/-(inclusive of amount granted under no fault liability) as compensation, that is not reasonable. It was urged that the deceased was 40 years old and she was earning Rs. 1,000/-per month by doing labour in agricultural field. 12. The learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded only a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/-(inclusive of amount granted under no fault liability) as compensation, that is not reasonable. It was urged that the deceased was 40 years old and she was earning Rs. 1,000/-per month by doing labour in agricultural field. She was also maintaining the house and serving the claimants, due to her untimely death, which has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the claimants have suffered loss of income and services which she was rendering to her family. It was contended that the Tribunal has not assessed the loss properly. The learned Tribunal has also not applied the multiplier method. The claimant-respondent No. 1 is the husband and the respondents No. 2 to 4 are the children of deceased. They have been deprived of her company, love and affection and services rendered by the deceased but the learned Tribunal did not consider these aspects properly while determining the compensation. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents has placed reliance on Major M .V. Thapliyal & Ors. vs. Smt. Shyam Bala & Ors., RLW 2001 (3) Raj. Page 1504 and prayed that the Judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal may be modified and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant-submitted in respect of cross-objection that the learned Tribunal has already awarded a reasonable amount of compensation. The monthly earning of the deceased was not proved. It was prayed that now there is no scope for enhancement. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment and award of the Tribunal. 15. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver i.e., Shri Dadu. AW. 1 Hemta husband of the deceased and AW. 2 Gautam were also travelling in the same bus and they have deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus thereby resulting in the death of Smt. Jyoti on the spot. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/-as compensation to the claimants. 16. On behalf of the Insurance Company, NAW . 2 Gautam were also travelling in the same bus and they have deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus thereby resulting in the death of Smt. Jyoti on the spot. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/-as compensation to the claimants. 16. On behalf of the Insurance Company, NAW . 1 Pradeep Nagpal has been produced. He deposed that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited but he has not been able to prove the policy, only the true copy of the policy was produced. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant has not proved their stand of limited liability. I have seen the material. There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The contentions of the appellants side are not well founded and they are liable to be rejected. No interference in the finding given on issue No. 3 is required. The appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected. 17. Considering the submissions, made by the parties with regard to cross-objections filed by the claimant-respondents, I find that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the statement of Hemta (AW . 1) the husband of the deceased. Hemta has deposed that his wife was earning Rs. 1,000/-per month by doing labour work. That it not unusual and there is no rebuttal from the other side. Hemta (AW . 1) has further stated that she was also maintaining the house and due to untimely death of Smt. Jyoti, the claimants have been deprived of her services. Hemta (AW . 1) has stated the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 40 years. The deceased was the wife of claimant No. 1 and mother of claimants No. 2 to 4. They suffered loss of earnings as well as loss of love and affection but the learned Tribunal has not properly considered these aspects of matter. A lump sum amount has been awarded, no multiplier method has been applied. Looking to these facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs. 30,000/-(inclusive of the amount granted under no fault liability) is not just and reasonable and it requires modification. I assess the monthly loss of Rs. A lump sum amount has been awarded, no multiplier method has been applied. Looking to these facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs. 30,000/-(inclusive of the amount granted under no fault liability) is not just and reasonable and it requires modification. I assess the monthly loss of Rs. 500/-to the claimants due to untimely death of Smt. Jyoti and on that basis, looking to her age, if the suitable multiplier of 12 is taken, the compensation comes out as Rs. 72,000/-(500x12x12). Further looking to the relation of the claimants with the deceased, loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-loss of services and for suffering mental pain and agony Rs. 13,000/- are awarded. Thus, the total compensation comes out Rs. 1,00,000/-(inclusive of no fault liability) that is enhanced by Rs. 70,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim application. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is disallowed. The cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondents are partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs. 30,000/-to Rs. 1,00,000/-and further the claimants shall be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 70,000/-from the date of claim application till satisfaction. The rest of the Judgment and Award are affirmed. The driver and owner of the bus are made jointly and severally responsible for the same as the bus is insured with the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company has been held responsible for the payment. Thus, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit or pay the aforesaid determined amount of compensation to the claimants within two months from the date of the Judgment , failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the same. No order as to costs