JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This common judgment governs disposal of misc. appeals preferred by appellant/non-claimant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Corporation’) and appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in MAC Case No.254/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,66,860/- in favour of claimants. The liability of satisfying the award was fastened upon non-claimants No.2 and 3 and the non-claimant No.1 i.e. driver of the offending bus was exonerated. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.42,32,500/- on account of death of their sole breadwinner, late Sh. Laduram, who lost his life in the accident. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 that on 13.06.2012, in the morning at 11:00 am, Laduram was travelling in Roadways Bus (RJ-04-PA-1764) from Barmer to Baytu. In the said bus, deceased Laduram was standing on the gate of bus and when the said bus near Uttarlai, deceased fell down from the bus, as the gate was opened. The deceased sustained various injuries and owing to the same, he died during treatment on 26.06.2012 First information of the aforesaid incident was reported at Police Station Barmer, wherein after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against non-claimant No.2 for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. 3. After registration of the claim petition, summons were issued to the non-claimants and after receipt of the summons reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts and a prayer for rejecting the claim petition was made. 4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, which inter-alia reads as under : 5. In support of their claim, the claimant No.1 Smt. Parvati examined herself as AW.1 and in documentary evidence 21 documents were produced. The non-claimants despite being granted opportunity, did not lead any evidence, oral and documentary, in defence. 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation to tune of Rs.5,66,860/- in favour of claimants along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 7. 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation to tune of Rs.5,66,860/- in favour of claimants along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in partially deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant. He submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and the deceased himself was negligent, as he was standing near the gate of the bus and no independent eyewitness of the incident has been examined. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation further submits that the FIR of the incident was lodged after delay of three days. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation further submits that there was composite negligence, which vitiates the impugned judgment and award and thus the liability of compensation could not have been fastened only the Corporation. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation further submits that there was no evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning and the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding 25% increased towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not relying upon Schedule attached to Section 163A of the Act, according to which if the income of the deceased is not proved, then annual income could be considered as Rs.15,000/- per year and not more than that. Learned counsel for the appellant also questioned the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation thus prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment impugned be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who have also filed misc. appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation opposed the submissions made by counsel for the Corporation and submits that the compensation deserves to be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the deceased was doing the book binding work and thereby he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3822/- per month and future prospects has not been awarded in favour of claimants. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the deceased was doing the book binding work and thereby he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3822/- per month and future prospects has not been awarded in favour of claimants. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on lower side and the same ought to have been enhanced. Learned counsel for the claimants thus prayed that appeal preferred by the Corporation be dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimants may be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issues No.2 and 3 has observed that the claimants have not produced any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing the work of book binding and, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence led by the claimants, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3822/- i.e. the minimum wages and also added 25% increased in his future income. Further, looking to the age of the deceased, who at the relevant time was 46 years of age, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13, which is also correct one. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while quantifying the compensation under the head of loss of income. The compensation thus awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of income is adequate and calls for no enhancement or interference. 12. This Court also finds the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.1 has rightly observed that after investigation charge sheet (Ex.16) was filed against the conductor of the offending bus, inasmuch as it was the duty of the conductor (non-claimant No.2) to ensure that the gate of bus is properly closed and thereafter instruct the driver of the bus to ply the same. The learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the conductor/non-claimant No.2 of the bus. The learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the conductor/non-claimant No.2 of the bus. In this view of the matter, the appellant- Corporation and the conductor of the offending bus have rightly been held liable to pay the compensation. 13. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeals filed by the appellant Corporation and the appellants/claimants. The misc. appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Stay Application No.413/2020 preferred in CMA No.482/2020 is dismissed. No costs.