JUDGMENT 1. The above mentioned appeals as well as cross objections shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the common accident. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The CMA Nos. 363/2002 and 438/2002 have been preferred by the RSRTC and the cross objections bearing Nos. 24/2003 & 04/2003 respectively have been filed on behalf of respondents against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated 12.12.2001 passed in Claim Case Nos. 22/2000 and 29/2000 respectively. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals and cross objections are that on 17.04.1999, the Tata Sumo Jeep having registration No. RJ-07-C-3242 was being driven by its driver Roshan AN. While travelling from Jodhpur to Bikaner, the said jeep collided with Roadways bus of the appellant-RSRTC bearing registration No. RJ-10-P-1430 which was coming from the opposite direction. In the accident, the driver of the Sumo vehicle Roshan AN died and Raghunath Singh who was travelling in the Tata Sumo sustained injuries. 5. In the circumstances, two separate claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal. One by the legal representatives of Roshan AN, claiming compensation on account of his death in the accident which occurred on 17.04.1999 and another by Raghunath Singh claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 6. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, patly allowed the claim petitions. In the claim petition preferred by Raghunath Singh, an amount of Rs.2,90,200/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by him whereas an amount of Rs. 5,65,000/- was awarded to the LRs of Roshan AN on account of his death in the said accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC vehemently submitted that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 are erroneous on the face of it. He submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly held the appellant-RSRTC responsible for the rash and negligent driving of the bus in the present case. He submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, the place of accident is shown as the center of the road which is marked as 'X'. He further submits that in the statement of the Conductor of the bus recorded before the Tribunal, it was stated that the bus was being driven on the correct side. He submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, the place of accident is shown as the center of the road which is marked as 'X'. He further submits that in the statement of the Conductor of the bus recorded before the Tribunal, it was stated that the bus was being driven on the correct side. On the strength of the site plan prepared by the Police, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon this Court that at least the factor of contributory negligence should have been taken into consideration while awarding the compensation and that the driver of the bus alone cannot be held responsible for the accident in the present case. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred while recording the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 against the appellants and the same are required to be modified. Learned counsel also submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is to the tune of 9% which is on the higher side and, therefore, he prays that the interest may be reduced suitably. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants while supporting the findings of the Tribunal emphatically submitted that in view of the statement of the injured Raghunath Singh and Devprakash, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not required to be interfered with. He submitted that even as per the site plan prepared by the Police, the Tata Sumo vehicle in which the injured and the deceased were travelling, is shown on the left side of the road at the time of accident which clearly depicts the fact that Tata Sumo was being driven on its correct side. He has submitted that there is no reason for disbelieving the statement of Raghunath Singh and Devprakash who were the occupants of the Tata Sumo and were injured in the present case. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4284 , the amount awarded was ordered to be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum, therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding the interest @ 9% per annum. 9. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2001 as well as the relevant record of the case. 10. A close scrutiny of the site plan shows that the accidental site was at the center of the road. Therefore, the fact that the Tata Sumo was being driven on the wrong side is far from truth. Thus, it can conveniently be held in this case that the driver of the Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle on the correct side. Further, it is noticed that the injured Raghunath Singh and Devprakash in their statement have clearly stated that the driver of the Tata Sumo Roshan AN was driving the jeep on the correct side of the road and after seeing the bus of RSRTC coming from the other side in a rash and negligent manner, they told the driver Roshan AN to slow down and drive the vehicle on the left side . On being instructed so, the driver of the jeep Roshan AN reduced the speed of the vehicle and took the vehicle on the left side. Thus, it shows that the bus of RSRTC which was coming from the opposite side hit the Tata Sumo which was being driven carefully on the correct side of the road. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently cannot be faulted. For brevity, the observations of the Tribunal are reproduced herewith for better appreciation of the facts:- 11. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 4 do not suffer from any infirmity and it is held that the appellant's bus was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation falls on the appellant. As far as the argument with respect to the interest raised by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is to be noted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya (supra) the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the appellant-RSRTC are dismissed. 13. 12. Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the appellant-RSRTC are dismissed. 13. The claimants-respondents have filed cross objections assailing the findings of facts taken into account for computation of the award in the present case. 14. Learned counsel for the cross objector Raghunath Singh submits that the Tribunal has not computed his income properly and, therefore, awarded the compensation on a lower side. The learned counsel for the cross objector-injured Raghunath Singh has given the calculation for the recomputation of the award in the present case taking into consideration the fact that the age of Raghunath Singh was 53 years and 8 injuries in total were suffered by him in the said accident. He submits that the award is required to be recomputed in the light of RALSA Guidelines. 15. Per Contra, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the factors prevailing at the time of computing the award and, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 16. I have considered the submissions made above and am of the considered opinion that in view of the RALSA Guidelines, the award in the present case is required to be recomputed as under: - For Eight Injuries (4 Simple + 4 Grievous) (4x2500) + (50,000+45000 + 15000) Rs. 1,20,000/- Hospitalization Charges (180 days x 600 ) Rs. 1,08,000/- For Permanent Disability 25% (25,000+ 5,000 x 25) Rs. 1,50,000/- For Loss of income (500 x 180 days) Rs. 90,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 52,200/- For Pain and Sufferings 15% of (1,20,000 + 1,50,000 + 1,08,000) Rs. 56,700/- Total Rs.5,76,900/- Less: Amount already awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,90,200/- Total enhancement comes to Rs.2,86,700/- 17. In the case of second cross objector Mst. Jubeda, the learned counsel for the cross objectioner submits that the amount awarded in the present case is also required to be recomputed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the evidence produced before it for calculation of the amount and, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 19. I have considered the submissions made above. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the evidence produced before it for calculation of the amount and, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 19. I have considered the submissions made above. In light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount awarded in the case of Mst. Jubeda is also required to be recomputed as under :- For future prospects :- 40% of Rs.2,500/-(Income of deceased) Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 2500/- + Rs. 1000/- Rs. 3,500/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 3500/- / 1/3 = Rs. 1,167/- Dependence Amount Rs.3500 - Rs. 1167 = Rs. 2,333/- The age of deceased was 27 years and, therefore, a multiplier of 17 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 2333 x 12 x 17 Rs. 4,75,932/- (II) Consortium 40,000+40,000+40,000 Rs. 1,20,000 (III) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 6,25,932/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 12.12.2001 Rs.5,65,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 60,932/- 20. Accordingly, the cross objections preferred by Shri Raghunath and Mst. Jubeda are allowed. The appellant-RSRTC is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,86,700/- and Rs. 60,932/- to the respondents-claimants in Cross Objection Nos. 24/2003 & 04/2003 respectively in their favour, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Since the interim orders staying the operation of the award dated 12.12.2001 were passed in the appeals of the appellant-Corporation, only 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal was disbursed to the claimants, therefore, it is made clear that the balance amount is to be paid by appellant-RSRTC along with the enhanced amount within a period of eight weeks from today. The enhanced amount as well as balance compensation amount to be paid by the appellant-RSRTC shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum.