S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) AS against the claim of compensation to the tune of rs. 19,72,200 on account of the death of the husband of the present respondent No. 1 and father of the remaining respondents who was sole breadwinner of the family in the proceedings initiated under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal gave an award determining the amount of compensation only to the extent of Rs. 3,75,000.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, the present appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation has come up in appeal against the aforesaid award praying for the setting aside of the same. Claimants have on the other hand come up with a cross-objection seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as originally claimed but with an interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

( 4 ) IN the claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Anita, the widow of Brajpal singh alias Kallu, disclosed her age to be 21 years. She had asserted that the age of her husband at the time of his death was 23 years.

( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by the present appellant, it had asserted that the age of the deceased was 26 years.

( 6 ) THE claimants had come up with the case that the deceased was employed as a driver and while driving the jeep bearing registration No. MP 06-A 353, the bus bearing registration No. RJ 14-2234 which was being driven rashly and negligently had dashed into the jeep driven by Brajpal singh alias Kallu resulting in the overturning of the jeep and death of Brajpal singh alias Kallu on the spot.

( 7 ) SO far as the income of the deceased was concerned, it had been asserted by the claimants that he was getting a salary of rs. 1,800 per month and in addition thereto he was receiving an amount of Rs. 20 per day to meet the expenses of his food. The deceased used to give the entire amount of his salary Rs. 1,800 per month to his wife. It was also asserted that apart from driving the jeep, the deceased was also carrying on a business in the sale and purchase of limestone and lime. After deducting the expenses he had a profit of Rs. 1,000 per month from that business.

( 8 ) THE appellant had contested the claim of the claimants on various grounds asserting that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. It was also asserted that in fact, right front tyre of the jeep had burst with the result that the driver lost control over the jeep which had overturned.

( 9 ) IN support of their claim, the wife of the deceased, Anita was examined as PW 1. She had asserted in clear and categorical terms that Brajpal Singh used to give her the entire amount of Rs. 1,800 per month received by him towards his salary and that he was getting an allowance of Rs. 20 per day to meet his expenses incurred in connection with food, etc. , she had also asserted that her husband was carrying on a business of 'chuna-bhatti from which he was earning Rs. 1,000 per month which was also given by him to her. She admitted that her husband had passed the Higher secondary School Examination. In support of her claim, she could not produce the certificate issued by the Board which contains an endorsement in regard to the date of birth. No account in regard to the business of 'chuna-bhatti' could be produced by her. She, however, admitted that this business was being run by the deceased along with Ashok Batham who was not his employee.

( 10 ) SUNIL Kumar Garg, a co-passenger was examined as PW 2. He had supported the case of the claimants about the bus having been driven rashly and negligently.

( 11 ) SURENDRA Singh was examined as pw 3. He claimed that the deceased used to run the 'chuna-bhatti' business in Kolaras. He asserted that he had purchased lime from the deceased. He, however, could not state as to whether the deceased had any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document