JUDGMENT

DUTT, J. :— This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Udaipur.

2. In the night between the 3rd and 4th December, 1966, Hari Singh, since deceased, the husband of the appellant No. 1 and the father of the appellant No. 2, hired an Ambassador car belonging to the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad for going to his native village at Kangeti in Madhya Pradesh from Udaipur in Rajasthan. When the car had gone 21 miles from Udaipur, it collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction. It skidded and hit against a tree. As a result of the accident, Hari Singh died on the spot and one Shanker Lal who was also travelling in the same car and happened to be the friend of Hari Singh received some injuries.

3. At the time of his death, Hari Singh was only 25. He left behind him his wife, the appellant No. 1 who was only 18 and the appellant No. 2, his daughter, then only a child.

4. The appellants filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Udaipur, claiming a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation.

5. The Tribunal came to the finding that the accident which resulted in the death of Hari Singh was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. The Tribunal disposed of the issue as to the claim of the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1 lac as follows:

"Claimants of Case No. 3 of 1967 have claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lac which appears to be excessive. In my opinion an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be adequate. The issue is decided accordingly."

6. The Tribunal has not given any reason why the claim of the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1 lac could not be accepted. At this stage, it may be stated that the case of the Insurance Company which was the opposite party No. 3 before the Tribunal was that its liability was only up to a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Issue No. 7 that was framed by the Tribunal relating to the liability of the Insurance Company is extracted below :-

"7. Whether the liability of opposite-party No. 3 cannot exceed Rs. 4,000/- in each case."

7. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 7 is as follows :-

"The learned counsel for the claimants conceded that the liability of the Insurance Company could not exceed Rs. 4,000/- in each case. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3."

8. Upon the said findings, the Tribunal made an award for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the appellants against the opposite parties including the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad and the driver of the truck assessing the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- only.

9. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court challenging only the adequacy of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. A cross-objection was also filed by the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad, the ownr of the car. The High Court, as stated already, affirmed the award and dismissed the appeal and the cross-objection. Hence this appeal by special leave.

10. The first point that has been urged by Mr. Lodha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that the High Court was not justified in affirming the award of the Tribunal for Rs. 10,000/- only as compensation. It appears from the evidence of the appellant No. 1 that the father of the deceased had a dairy farm, a poultry farm, a flour mill and an agricultural farm. The deceased used to look after the business and his monthly income was about Rs. 1,000/- and that out of the said income, about Rs. 700/- used to be spent and the total saving was only Rs. 300/- a month. As against this evidence, no evidence was led by the respondents regarding the income of the deceased. The High Court, in affirming the award of the Tribunal as to the quantum of award of the Tribunal as to the quantum of compensation observed as follows:-

"It appears to us from the evidence so led by the claimants that Hari Singh at the time o