JUDGMENT : This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and the order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on 13/12/2005 in Claim Petition No.301/2001, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.8,06,000/- to the respondents-claimants. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : Deceased Vinod was working as Conductor with the appellant Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. On 05/09/2000, after completing his duties, deceased was returning on his Scooter, bearing no. MFW-8183. At about 1:15 p.m. when he started proceeding on his Scooter from S.T. Depot premises, the S.T. Bus bearing no. MH-31/8725 came from opposite direction in a fast speed and gave dash to his Scooter. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained the injuries. He was admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to the private hospital. However, he succumbed to injuries on 21/10/2000 during the treatment. The accident was reported to the police and police has registered the offence under section 279, 337 and 304A of I.P.C. against the Bus driver. 3. As per the case of respondents, deceased was running about 40 years of age and was in the employment of M.S.R.T.C. He had completed 15 years of service and his last salary was Rs.7,800/- per month. He was the only earning member of the family. On account of his untimely death, the respondents suffered, not only mental shock and agony, but also they have lost their only source of income. Hence they claimed compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- from the appellant, by filing claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter will be referred to as “Act” for convenience). 4. This claim petition came to be resisted by appellant vide written statement at Exh.13, admitting the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Bus, but denying that the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Bus. It was submitted that the Bus was driven at moderate and slow speed and it was the deceased who was in high speed and gave dash to the Bus. Hence, the accident has occurred due to his negligence and also coupled with the fact that he was driving the Scooter in the premises prohibited for vehicles i.e. in the compound of workshop. Hence, the accident has occurred due to his negligence and also coupled with the fact that he was driving the Scooter in the premises prohibited for vehicles i.e. in the compound of workshop. It was thus submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants. 5. In support of their case, on behalf of the respondents, respondent no.1, the widow of deceased, Alka has examined herself and produced various documentary evidence on record, including the medical bills. She also led the evidence of three witnesses, namely, Dr. Gautam Darda, Shailesh Jain and Purushottam Tiwari. As against it, appellant has examined its official, namely, Ram Nakade, who is claimed to be an eye witness to the accident. 6. On appreciation of their evidence, learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Bus, and accordingly held appellant liable to pay the compensation of Rs.8,06,000/- to the respondents. 7. While challenging the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Bus driver was taking the Bus from ramp to the parking place and therefore, Bus cannot be, at the relevant time in a high speed. Conversely it was the deceased, who was driving his Scooter in a prohibited area. Therefore, as the Bus driver has not committed the rash and negligent act, appellant is not liable for paying the compensation to the respondents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the finding of the Tribunal by pointing out that Bus driver has not entered into witness box to prove negligence on the part of the deceased and the police had, after carrying out requisite inquiry and investigation, filed F.I.R. and charge sheet against Bus driver, thereby proving that the cause of the accident was his rash and negligent driving. 9. Hence the only issue which arises for my consideration is whether the cause of accident is proved to be the rash and negligent driving of the S.T. Bus? 10. In this case, admittedly, respondent no.1, the widow of the deceased, was not an eye witness to the accident. The respondents had also not examined any other eye witness to the manner in which the accident has occurred. 10. In this case, admittedly, respondent no.1, the widow of the deceased, was not an eye witness to the accident. The respondents had also not examined any other eye witness to the manner in which the accident has occurred. Their main reliance is on the copy of F.I.R. (Exh.22) and spot panchnama (Exh.23) to prove their case that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. To controvert this evidence, appellant has examined its official, namely, Ram Nakade. However, his evidence shows that he was not an eye witness to the actual accident. He has deposed that at the time of accident, he was sitting in the Cabin of the Depot Manager. After hearing the sound of the dash, he saw through the glass of the Cabin that one Scooterist has fallen down in front of one Bus. Thereafter he rushed there to help the Scooterist. He has not stated anything about the manner in which the accident has taken place. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that, in his cross-examination he has admitted that he had not noticed as to in which direction the Bus was proceeding and in which direction the deceased was coming on the Scooter. Further his statement was also not recorded by the police in the course of investigation. In such situation, as for the first time he is coming before the Tribunal to give evidence, that too, at the instance of his superior officers, the Tribunal has rightly refused to place reliance on his testimony to hold that cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. 11. As regards his evidence that spot of accident was in the prohibited premises of the workshop of the appellant, in his cross-examination he has admitted that the two wheelers of the staff are parked in the open place and one has to take his two wheeler to the said parking place for parking and thereafter, from the parking place through the Depot premises as there was no separate way for entering into the parking place. In such situation, it cannot be said that deceased, who after completion of his duty, was returning on his Scooter to his home, had committed the breach of any rules and regulations by entering into the area of workshop to take out his Scooter. 12. In such situation, it cannot be said that deceased, who after completion of his duty, was returning on his Scooter to his home, had committed the breach of any rules and regulations by entering into the area of workshop to take out his Scooter. 12. The material evidence in the case would have been that of the Bus driver himself to prove that the deceased had all of a sudden come on his Scooter in front of the Bus and dashed himself. However, the Bus driver has not entered into the witness box nor led evidence of other eye witnesses. As it was an area which was not meant for the other outsiders, the respondents were in fact not in a position to produce the evidence of any independent eye witness. Hence sans any evidence produced by the appellant herein, it has to be held that the sole cause of accident, as transpired in the investigation by the police, was the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Merely because he cannot be in fast speed as he has just taken out the Bus from the ramp in order to park it, does not mean that he was careful and cautious in driving the Bus. Negligence or rashness does not depend merely on the speed of the vehicle, but they depend on several other factors also, like the driver of the vehicles not taking note of the approaching vehicle or the condition of the road or the place where he was driving the vehicle. In the instant case, it was necessary for the Bus driver to take note of the Scooterist, who was coming from the parking place and in that situation, if the dash has taken place, then the cause of the accident is required to be held as that of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the appellant that it can be a case of contributory negligence, as there is absolute no iota of evidence to show that the deceased was in any way responsible for the said accident by driving his Scooter in a rash and negligent manner. 13. Once it is held that appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased, the next question arising for consideration is the quantum of compensation. 13. Once it is held that appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased, the next question arising for consideration is the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that at the time of accident deceased was working as Conductor with the appellant and his net salary was Rs.4,800/- per month. Therefore, his annual income comes to Rs.57,600/-. As he was married, 1/3rd of the said amount is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, and hence annual dependency of the respondents comes to Rs.38,400/-. 14. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘15’. However, if one considers the para no.21 of the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others –Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104, an appropriate multiplier for the deceased in between the age group of 40 to 45 years is ‘14’. In this case, admittedly as the deceased was above 40 years of age, as observed by the Tribunal itself, appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’, and hence financial dependency of the respondents comes to Rs.5,37,600/-. 15. The Tribunal has also awarded amount of Rs.80,000/- towards medicines and laboratory charges and Rs.1,13,000/- towards hospital charges, as indoor patient. The medical bills to that effect produced on record, and therefore, respondents become entitle to get that amount also. 16. Though as regards amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards diet and conveyance charges, the bills are not produced on record, considering the fact that the deceased was admitted in the hospital and was under treatment for about 1 and ½ months, those charges being reasonable, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the same. 17. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which needs to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh –Vs Rajbir Singh, 2013 (9) SUPREME COURT CASES 54. Similarly the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards the loss of consortium also needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no.1, the widow. So also amount of Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards love and affection and loss of estate for the children and the parents of the deceased, also needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.9,15,600/-. 18. Thus the appeal stands dismissed. So also amount of Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards love and affection and loss of estate for the children and the parents of the deceased, also needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.9,15,600/-. 18. Thus the appeal stands dismissed. However the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, therefore, is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay the compensation of Rs.9,15,600/- to the respondents-claimants with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. 19. Rests of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, stands confirmed.