Manak Mohta, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 211.1991 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MACT Case No. 96/1990 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondents with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount .

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the wife of claimant-respondent No. 1 and mother of claimant-respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e., Smt. Jyoti, aged 40 years, was travelling in Bus No. RJB-1697 of Anil Travels from Keshariyaji to Salumber. It was alleged in the claim petition that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed by Dadu-the driver. When the bus reached near Rathore Bus Stand situated near Pooliya No. 96/2, the bus hit an Ox, who died on the spot. Due to this collision, the gate of the bus opened and Smt. Jyoti fell down on the road and got crushed under the wheel of bus and succumbed to her injuries. It was alleged in the claim petition that she was earning Rs. 1,000/-per month by doing labour work in agricultural fields. Claimant-respondent No. 1 has been deprived of his marital life, as also the services of house-keeping, which his wife used to perform for him and his children. The claimant-respondents No. 2 to 4 have been deprived of love and affection of their mother. It was further stated that they suffered loss of earnings, as also suffered mental pain and agony. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-under different heads.

3. A reply to the claim petition was filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, wherein the allegations levelled in the claim petition were denied and took a stand that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-only under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver and owner of the bus, namely, Dadu and Kantilal also submitted a joint reply denying all the averments made in the claim petition. Further it was stated that the bus was insured and if any liability for compensation arises, then the Insurance Company will be responsible for the same.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Þ¼1½ vk;k fnukad 15-06-1988 dks Jherh T;ksfr dh e`R;q foi{kh uEcj ,d Jh nknw ds }kjk okgu ua- vkj-ts-ch- 1697 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ \ ¼2½ vk;k izkFkhZx.k Dyse eascrkbZ xbZ jkf k :i;s 6]00]000@& :i;s ;k vU; dksbZ jkf k izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls ikus ds vf /kdkjh gSa] ;fn gS rks fdruh o fdl&fdl ls \ ¼3½ D;k foi{kh chek dEiuh }kjk tokcnkos easmBkbZ xbZ vkifÙk;kas dsvk/kkj ij chek dEiuh dk nkf ;Ro ugha gS ] ¼4½ nknjlh \

5. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, AW. 1 Hemta and AW. 2 Gauttam were examined and documents, namely, FIR (Exhibit-1), Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-2), charge-sheet (Exhibit-3), site-map (Exhibit-4), MTO Report (Exhibit-5), Inquest Report (Exhibit-6) and Seizure Report of bus (Exhibit-7) were produced and got exhibited. In defence, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the statement of NAW-1 Pradeep Nagpal was recorded and documents, namely, Comprehensive Policy (Exhibit D/1) and Cover-note (Exhibit D/2) were produced and got exhibited.

6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus thereby resulting into death of Smt. Jyoti and awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-only as compensation in favour of the claimants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. The learned Tribunal further also held the Insurance Company responsible for the payment of compensation amount, as determined aforesaid.

7. The Insurance Company being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgement and Award dated 211.1991, has preferred the instant appeal.

8. During the pendency of the appeal, claimant-respondents filed their cross-ob