1. - The appeals Nos. 1138 of 2004 and 1139 of 2004 have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) against the common award dated 18.5.2004 of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dausa (in short MACT) in Claim cases Nos.103/2001 and 104/2001, whereby the claim petitions of the claimants were allowed and they have been awarded Rs. 1,79,800 and 4,31,896/- respectively and the claimants have filed appeal Nos.1621 of 2004 and 3043 of 2007 for enhancement of the compensation amount. Since all the four appeals arise from the common award dated 18.5.2005, it is appropriate for this court to decide these appeals by this common order.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 22.8.2000 when Smt. Manju Devi and Than Singh were going on motor cycle near village Ukrooned Bus No. RJ 02 P 0334 came from behind and hit the motor cycle resulting in their death. Claim Petitions 103/2001 and 104/2001 were filed by the claimants and the same were allowed by the common award dated 18.5.2004 by the MACT mentioned above.

4. In regard to issues 1 and 3 Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has contended that the findings of the MACT on these two issues are absolutely illegal, perverse and contrary to the record. The MACT has committed serious error in holding that accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the RSRTC bus. In the seizure memo of the bus the police clearly shows that the motor cycle collided with the rear wheel of the conductor side of the bus, which shows that the story of the claimants that the bus hit the motor cycle from the back side is absolutely false and in fact the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the motor cycle. In such circumstances the possibilities of contributory and composite negligence cannnot be ruled out. The MACT has not appreciated the statement of the driver who has stated on oath that the motor cycle driver was trying to overtake the bus from the wrong direction and in this process the motor cycle dashed against a buffalo and as there was no contribution of the driver of the bus in the said accident. NAW 1 and NAW 2 in their evidence stated that the driver has not committed any accident but the fact is that the motor cycle was accidented with a buffalo and as such there was no negligence of the bus driver. The driver of the bus has been charge sheeted by the Police cannot be said the sole ground for holding the driver negligent.

5. On issue No.2 in the claim petition No. 103/2001, two appeals have been filed. Appeal No.1138 has been filed by the RSRTC for quashing the award and appeal No.1621 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants for enhancing the award money. The MACT while deciding issue No.2 awarded excessive amount as compensation. The income of the deceased assessed to be Rs. 21,600 per annum is on the higher side and hence award of Rs. 1,79,800 as compensation is excessive. Multiplier of 12 is also on the higher side looking to the age of the dependents. Awarding of interest @ 9 % per annum is arbitrary which cannot be more than 6 % per annum.

6. On issue No.2 in the appeal filed by the claimants in claim case No. 103/2001 for enhancement of the compensation, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3000/- per month but the MACT wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 60 per day but it should have been Rs. 100/- per day. The multiplier of 12 has been applied while looking to the age of the deceased it should have been 17. The MACT has awarded Rs. 5000/- for the mental agony and Rs. 2000/- as cremation expenses. In these circumstances it was prayed that the compensation awarded to the claimants may be enhanced appropriately.

7. In regard to issue No.2 in the claim petition