1. - Both these appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, filed against the judgment of the learned M.A.C.T., Jodhpur, dated 23.7.1983 in case No. 48 of 1980.

2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same award they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Admitted facts of the case are that on 4.1.1980 at about 7.30 p.m. one Abdul Aziz alias Aziz Khan was returning to his house after day's work. When he was crossing the railway line and reached near Pilater House, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur, the respondent No. 9, Mool Chand, came from the opposite side driving truck No. RJQ 7132 and hit Abdul Aziz due to which he had received injuries. The injured Abdul Aziz was brought to the M.G. Hospital but he expired within a few hours of the accident. A report relating to the accident was lodged with the police. A case was registered against the driver Mool Chand and a challan was filed against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur. After serving a notice on the owner of the truck and the insurance company, the appellants: father, mother, widow, son and sisters, Amina, Meherum and Hamida, of the deceased filed an application before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,92,000/- under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. During the pendency of the case, Kapoor Chand expired and his legal representatives were brought on record. M Kapoor Chand and insurance company filed their reply. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned M.A.C.T., Jodhpur, framed necessary issues and after recording evidence and after hearing the parties accepted the claim of the appellants to the extent of Rs. 66,420/- payable by Mool Chand, insurance company and Regal Sports but exonerated the L. of Kapoor Chand from their liability of payment. It was further held that sisters of the deceased, Amina, Meherum and Hamida, are not entitled to get any compensation. Aggrieved by the order Mohd. Siddique, the appellant, filed this appeal for enhancement of the award. On the other hand, the respondent Regal Sports has also filed an appeal challenging the same award.

4. Mr. B.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the non-claimant appellant, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in assuming the expected age of the deceased to be 75 years whereas the appellant has stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years old and was expected to live for 30 years more, in the claim petition. He has further submitted that the widow of the deceased has got remarried in the year 1988, so the award is to be reduced and adjusted according to the date of marriage only.

5. Mr. G.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the claimants, has submitted that amount awarded is inadequate, so the amount should be enhanced.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the record. It is not disputed that after the expiry of the deceased, his widow Khurshida has remarried. This fact has already been brought to the notice of this court vide application dated 7.10.1988, which has not been refuted by the claimants in spite of time granted. Today also Mr. G.S. Mehta has not disputed the fact. That apart, the claimants have already been paid Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent by the insurance company as per its liability according to the award. Under these circumstances, widow of the deceased has got remained and insurance company has paid Rs. 50,000/- along with interest out of the award of Rs. 66,420/-, which is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The claimants are not entitled for enhanced amount. As such the appeal filed by the claimants has no force. Therefore, the award is modified to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and the decree stands satisfied. The appellant Regal Sports is exonerated from its liability of above Rs. 50,000/- and the appeal filed by it deserves to be allowed and the same is reduced t