In determining the quantum of compensation for death in a motor accident, courts consider various factors such as the deceased's age, dependency of the claimants, future prospects of rise in income, fall in price of money, pain, shock and suffering, loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium, and expenses of treatment.

1. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 had filed a claim petition under the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)against appellants and respondent No.7. The claim petition arose because of a vehicular accident which took place on 6.7.98 at about 5.30 p. m. near Bus Stand, Kurukshetra in front of the petrol pump of village Ratgal, on Pipli-Kurukshetra Road. Shankar Das, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and son of respondent Nos.2 and 3 received fatal injuries in the said accident. The deceased was going on his scooter when he was dashed by the bus driven by respondent No.7 and owned by appellants. It is the case of the claimants-respondents that the deceased was driving his scooter at a slow speed and on the correct side of the road and when he reached the place of accident, a bus came from behind the scooter and the bus was run in a rash and negligent manner. Because of this, the bus dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased which caused multiple injuries to the deceased.

2. The claimants-respondents contended that the deceased was 36 years of age and was drawing a monthly salary of rs.13,000 excluding overtime and other allowances and since he had a large family to support, the claimants-respondents had claimed Rs.35,00,000 as compensation.

3. The respondents have contended that driver of the bus was not negligent. It is contended that the deceased had given a signal to the driver of the bus for overtaking his scooter but suddenly he turned his scooter towards the wrong side without giving any signal and hence the said accident was caused. The quantum of compensation has also been challenged. The Tribunal found that the bus driver was driving his bus in rash and negligent manner and awarded a sum of Rs.15,46,000 with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed this appeal before this court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

5. The first point taken by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. The tribunal has relied on the deposition of anil Dhawan, PW 2, who is Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Thanesar. He is an eyewitness to the accident. According to his version, referred to by the learned Tribunal, he was going on the fateful day on a scooter from his Branch Office, thanesar to his Regional Office in Kurukshetra and the deceased was driving his own scooter from the Branch Office to the Regional Office, a little ahead of him. The deceased was driving his scooter at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road and when the deceased reached at the place of accident, the bus came from behind being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The bus driver dashed his bus into the scooter of the deceased from behind and then dragged him to some distance and because of the same the deceased fell down and suffered multiple injuries. The deceased was shifted to the hospital at kurukshetra and then to P. G. I. , Chandigarh. However, on 13.7.1998 the deceased succumbed to his injuries suffered in the accident. This witness also lodged his report before the police and on the basis of that report the F. I. R. in this case was recorded.

6. The respondents have examined respondent No.7 who was driver of the bus. His version before the Tribunal, as it appears from the award, is that the driver of the bus wanted to overtake the scooter which was being driven by the deceased ahead of his bus and he gave a signal to the scooterist to this effect. The deceased then permitted him to overtake and when still he was in the process of overtaking the scooterist suddenly turned towards his right side and hence the accident took place. These are the two versions of witnesses from both sides.

7. Learned counsel for the appel