MILAP CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 110 -D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') for the enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated July 23, 1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, awarding Rs. 70,000/ - as compensation. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON December 26, 1984 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Gangadan was returning on his moped from Diesel Training School, Northern Railway, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. He was going on his correct side of the road. The truck No. GTY 4359 dashed him from his back side. As a result thereof, he sustained serious injuries. His colleagues immediately shifted him to the Railway Hospital, Jodhpur. Due to his serious condition, he was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Despite best efforts of the doctors, he could not be saved and died on December 29,1984. The appellants filed a petition under Section 110 -A of the Act claiming Rs. 4,00,000/ - as compensation. The respondents filed their written statements traversing all the allegations of the claim petition. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/ - with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, against the owner, insurer and driver of the said truck. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal seriously erred to hold that the deceased Gangadan was 45 years of age at the time of the accident and it is well proved from the statement of the widow Chhagan Kanwar, PW1 and the post -mortem report Exh. 9 that his age at the time of accident was 41 years. He also contended that multiple of atleast 20 should have been applied in calculating the amount of compensation. He further contended that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased Gangadan used to contribute Rs. 500/ - per month to the claimants, the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in not awarding amount spent on the treatment of the deceased, for the loss occasioned by the damage of the moped and also for the pain and sufferings suffered by the deceased during three days he remained alive after the accident. He lastly contended that the Tribunal also seriously erred to deduct Rs. 200/ - per month from the amount of monthly dependency of Rs. 700/ - on account of the grant of pension to the widowChhagan Kanwar and employment of his eldest son Vimaldan. He relied upon Arunaben v. Mehmoodbhai Imamali Kaji 1983 ACJ 409 (Gujarat), State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (PWD) v. Chaina Ram 1989 ACJ 13 (HP), N. Sivammal v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation 1985 ACJ 75 (SC), Prem Kanwar v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation 1988 ACJ 65 (Rajasthan), Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Kistoori Devi 1986 ACJ 960 (Rajasthan), Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam 1987 ACJ 172 (SC) and Sohan Lal v. Bal Swaroop Bal Bhatnagar 1987 ACJ 113 (Rajasthan).
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 4, that the sons and daughters of the deceased are not entitled to any amount as consortium and the widow of the deceased is only entitled to compensation under this head. He further contended that no amount under the head of medical expenses has been claimed in the claim petition. He lastly contended that no amount is admissible as compensation for performing the last rites of the deceased.;