JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed against the award dated 6.6.2009 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, in MACT case No.60/2007 whereby claim petition of the claimants were allowed and they have been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. RSRTC has filed SBCMA No. 4961/2009 against the award of compensation to the claimants whereas the claimants have filed the SBCMA No. 4614 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.4.2000 Madhu, Sundari, Neetu, Kedar, Munish and Neelam were going to Kaila Mata Temple for praying and at 6.45 a.m. when they reached Gadka Ki Chowki Karauli, a tractor bearing No. RRD 5452 which was running behind them and it was being followed by a RSRTC bus and the driver of tractor was driving rashly and negligently and bus driver was also running rashly and negligently and when bus driver was overtaking the tractor and in this course the rear part of the bus dashed with the tractor resulting in tractor hit Madhu and Sundari causing death of Madhu on the spot. An FIR was lodged in Police Station Karauli. The non- claimant No.1 filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that he had already sold tractor to the non- claimant No.2 Pooran Singh on 1.12.1995. The tractor driver was driving the tractor under the direction of Pooran Singh and Pooran Singh is liable for compensation. The non-claimants 2 and 3 did not appear before the MACT despite service of notice upon them and therefore exparte proceedings were initiated against them on 2.5.2008. The non-claimant No.4 insurance company was deleted from the array of the respondents vide order dated 20.6.2008. The respondents 5 and 6 filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the relevant parties the MACT framed as many as three issues. Three witnesses were produced by the claimants and 28 documents were exhibited before the MACT. The MACT decided the claim petition and held that bus driver was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the claimants. 4. Three witnesses were produced by the claimants and 28 documents were exhibited before the MACT. The MACT decided the claim petition and held that bus driver was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the claimants. 4. The learned counsel for the RSRTC has argued that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent of driving of both the drivers. AW- 2 Neelam in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and statement before the MACT, has stated that drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the finding of the criminal court is binding on the tribunal specially when eye witnesses appeared in the witness box and clearly stated that drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. 5. Mr. Mukesh Goyal, appearing for the claimants stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the MACT has rightly passed the award against the RSRTC and its driver. The MACT has awarded a very meager amount. The age of the deceased was 22 year and she was earning Rs. 8000/- per month but the MACT awarded a lump sum amount. This amount has to be increased. The MACT has awarded interest @ 7.5 % but it should have been awarded @ 12 % looking to the facts of this case. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award passed by the MACT dated 6.6.2009. The only ground taken by the RSRTC in the appeal is about the contributory negligence of the tractor driver and bus driver. The claimants filed the appeal for enhancing the claim amount. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award passed by the MACT dated 6.6.2009. The only ground taken by the RSRTC in the appeal is about the contributory negligence of the tractor driver and bus driver. The claimants filed the appeal for enhancing the claim amount. The MACT in the award observed as under : " ;|fi eqdkeh iqfyl }kjk nksuksa gh okguksa ds pkydksa ds fo:) vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ijUrq jksMost cl pkyd ,y0,0M0 3 dqrqcq)hu us bl nq?kZVuk ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa ckn vUoh{kk U;k;ky; }kjk V~sDVj pkyd jTtksa dks nks"keqDr dj fn;k tkuk rFkk Lo;a cl pkyd dks nq?kZVuk dk nks"kh ikrs gq;s mls ,d o"kZ ds dBksj dkjkokl ,oa lk<+s N% gtkj :i;s vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ 17 tks fd nq?kZVuk ds fnu gh rS;kj dh x;h gS] ds voyksdu ls nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k e/kq dqekjh iq=h cPpw flag dh e`R;q gksuk izekf.kr gSA " " 17- bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk jksMost cl la[;k vkj0ts0 14 ih 4060 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ la0 6 }kjk vius okgu dks rsth] ykijokgh o mis{kk ls pykrs gq;s vkxs tk jgs Vs~DVj dks vksojVsd fd;k] ftlls cl dk fiNyk fgLlk Vs~DVj }kjk lqUnjh ,oa e/kq dqekjh ds VDdj dkfjr gq;h] ftlesa e/kq dqekjh dh ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks x;hA " 7. In view of the above, it is clear that on account of rash and negligence driving of the bus driver which hit the tractor and on account of which deceased Madhu died on the spot, and the MACT has rightly held the RSRTC and its driver responsible for paying the compensation. The findings of the MACT in this manner cannot be said to be perverse. The issue No.1 was rightly decided in favour of the claimants. 8. On issue No.2, the MACT observed that even if the evidence of the claimants is to be accepted the deceased was only 22 years and was not married and hence the father and mother are not entitled for whole compensation of deceased and in this manner one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was determined to be payable to the claimants, who are mother and father of the deceased. 1,80,000/- was determined to be payable to the claimants, who are mother and father of the deceased. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged 22 years and was not married and thus the MACT has rightly awarded lump sum compensation for the death of Madhu to the father and mother. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The interest at the rate of 7.5% was rightly award. The appeals filed by the RSRTC and the claimants stand dismissed. Fifty per cent amount of the award lying in deposit may be paid to the claimants in accordance with the award dated 6.6.2009. The stay application also stands disposed of. The stay dated 9.10.2009 stands vacated.Order accordingly. *******