JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1,Kota (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 1686/2014(258/12), titled as "Khem Chand Nagar & Anr. v. Mahipal Singh & Ors.", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.7,38,580/- along with interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants').

2. CMA No. 5910/2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas CMA No. 5902/2016 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the RSRTC') challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds.

3. CMA No. 9510/2016-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased-Rohitraj Nagar only Rs.205/- per day. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that they had proved by un-rebutted evidence that deceased was a student of B.Tech Final Year (Eighth Semester) Electrical Engineering, Govt. Engineering College, Ajmer. His academic career was excellent throughout the life. After completing his B.Tech course, he would have got a good job in any government agency or private company and he would have easily earned at least Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that students studying along-with deceased are getting Rs.40,000/- per month. So, income of the deceased may be calculated as Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that multiplier should not be applied on the basis of the deceased's mother. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 22 years and 6 months. So, multiplier of 18 should be applied on the basis of age of deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla & Ors. v. Rameshwar & Ors. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2210/2008 decided on 20.09.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the RSRTC in CMA No. 5902/2016 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assigned the negligency of the alleged bus. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that the deceased was going on the motorcycle along with his friend Kushagra Gautam and due to their negligency, they collided with the bus from the back side. So, the RSRTC is not responsible for the negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits deceased was not in job but the Tribunal has wrongly awarded 50% towards future prospects. So, award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

7. While deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal in its award clearly stated that as per the fund inspection of damage motorcycle (Ex.-14), front mudguard of motorcycle was broken and back tyres and rims were completely