( 1 ) POOR parents, brothers and sisters of the young deceased Ratanlal, aged 22 years, who died in a motor accident on 19-1-1977 by motor bus No. MPU 5039 owned by respondent 1, i. e. Anwar Khan, driven by respondent 2 Prabhusingh and insured at the relevant time, with respondent 4, the New India Assurance Company Limited, claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- by filing an application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The respondent-non-applicants denied the allegations. After appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and held that the driver, the owner and the insurer are liable to pay compensation.

( 2 ) THE learned Tribunal, strangely enough, awarded the compensation for the death of a 22 years young and an earning member, only Rs. 4,200/- to the claimants after observing that the widow of the deceased has been remarried. The deceased was earning Rs. 110/- per month and as the widow has remarried, after deducting the expenses on the deceased on self, the dependency was calculated at Rs. 35/- per month. The annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 420/- and the multiplier was fixed of 10 years. Thus the compensation was awarded of Rs. 4,200/- and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the application. Aggrieved by this award, the claimants have preferred this appeal and have claimed compensation for Rs. 30,000/ -. The owner, the driver and the insurer have filed cross-objections. As it seems, they are not satisfied with the said award of Rupees 4,200/ -.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Insurance Company prayed for time submitted that negotiations are going on for compromise. He placed before me the correspondence between his client, the Insurance Company, and him, for granting an adjournment. The appeal is an old one of 1979 and the correspondence is of April 1988. So far, up to this time, the Insurance Company could not come to any conclusion in respect of the compromise. Hence, it would not be proper to grant any adjournment as the appeal is an old one and the parents now old must get the results of the appeal in their life-time and old appeal must see the light of the day. Hence, prayer for adjournment is refused. The appeal and cross-objections are heard on merits.

( 4 ) AT the outset, I may say that the cross-objections of respondents 1, 2 and 4, i. e. the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company, are not maintainable in view of the fact that the award, which was passed by the Tribunal, is within the statutory limit and the insurer, even after joining the owner and the driver, cannot file an appeal. Hence, the cross-objections are dismissed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the award of compensation of Rs. 4,200/- is too low for a human life. He submits that by insertion of S. 92-A of the Act, the Legislature has intended that for a human life taken by and in a motor accident, the legal representative must be paid Rs. 15,000/- as minimum compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper compensation in view of the provisions of S. 92-A of the Act. These provisions cannot be lost sight of by this Court while hearing an appeal. He, further, submits that there is constitutional mandate imposing on Courts duty to dispense with substantial justice. While awarding just compensation, though the provisions of S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are not retrospective in operation, even then, the amount of compensation amounting to less than Rs. 15,000/- would not be proper and it would be too low. He relied on the authorities of this Court in the case of Shamsher Khan v. M. P. Electricity Board, 1987 Jab LJ 721 and in the case of Rukmabai v. Ramlal, 1988 Acc CJ 351. He, further, relies on the case of the Bombay High Court reported in 1987 Acc CJ 198 (Oriental Fire and General