JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against judgment and award dated 13.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 54/1991 (208/1995).

2. The widow, children, mother and father were original claimants. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were driver and owner respectively while respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled to relief of enhancement of compensation as prayed in the present appeal. The accident occurred on 11.11.1990, when a jeep bearing registration number RST 4644 collided with a scooter bearing registration number RPK 3762 causing death of driver of scooter Bal Mukand, which led to the claim petition preferred against the parties of the jeep attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The scooter was being driven by deceased Bal Mukand and the offending jeep was being driven by the first respondent – Devi Singh.

4. Though summon was served, the first respondent has remained ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by remaining respondents. The second respondent, who was stated to be the owner of offending jeep, filed written statement wherein all the averments contained in claim petition were denied; simultaneously, pointing out that the accident was only because of negligence on the part of driver of the scooter, i.e. the deceased himself. He also denied liability for payment of compensation saying that the jeep was insured with the insurer. The third respondent, who was insurer of the offending jeep also contested the claim on many grounds including negligence; simultaneously, contending that first respondent had no valid driving license and that there was clear violation of statutory/ policy conditions. However, in the written statement, it was conceded that the offending jeep was insured by it. Additional objections were also taken and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings submitted, framed various issues covering the pleadings. The evidence consists of oral evidence of Gautam Chhapar (AW-1), who is son of the deceased and Bhanwar Lal (AW-2), who is stated to be an eye witness of the accident. Besides it, exhibits A/1 to A/9 were also produced from appellants’ side. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

6. On appraisal of evidence and record, the learned Tribunal held that Bal Mukand died due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It decided issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly. Under issue No.3, it was held that there was no violation of statutory/policy conditions as contended by the third respondent-insurer. Therefore, issue No.3 was decided in favour of the claimants holding that they were entitled to and respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, were liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,71,350 with interest @ 12% per annum by taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month. It deducted 40% of the income towards personal expenses. The multiplier of 11 was taken to compute the compensation as the deceased was aged about 51 years. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 450 for loss of watch and Rs. 3,000 for love and affection to each surviving children, observing that the window, father and mother of the deceased had passed away before the judgement is a rendered.

7. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to them, present appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation.

8. Shri Mudit Vaishnava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensati