A.S. Tripathi, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 9.1.1995 passed by the Vth Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.

2. The three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. M.A. No. 146 of 1995 shall be the leading case.

3. The undisputed facts are that one tanker No. MPG 9619 was owned by respondent No. 2, Kanhaiya Lal. Respondent No. 1, Munna Lal, was the driver of the tanker. The tanker was insured with respondent No. 3. On 21.8.1991 at about 8.15 a.m., Gulab Chand, one of the claimants, and his son, Suresh Chandra, the other claimant and one Suraj Singh (deceased) were going towards Malanpur factory on moped No. M/80. Gulab Chand was driving the moped. Near Gole Ka Mandir, the said tanker dashed the moped while being driven rashly and negligently. In that accident, on account of the tanker being driven rashly and negligently, Suraj Singh died on the spot and Gulab Chand and Suresh Chandra were injured. The first set of appellants Leela Bai, Prakash Singh, Mahendra Singh and Uma are the heirs of deceased Suraj Singh. Suraj Singh was said to have been an electrician, earning Rs. 70/- per day. A claim was put by his heirs for Rs. 4,90,000/-.

4. The other set of appellant Suresh Chandra also claimed to be an electrician earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. He sustained a fracture in his leg and was said to be disabled. His claim is that after the accident he was not able to perform his duties efficiently. He had also spent a lot of money for his treatment. He claims Rs. 2,00,000/- for his compensation.

5. The third set of Gulab Chand also claimed to be an electrician and mechanic and used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month. He also sustained injury and claims compensation.

6. The Tribunal framed the issues and held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker. It was also held that the tanker was properly insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. With these findings, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,400/- only to the heirs of deceased Suraj Singh with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of application.

7. Suresh Chandra was awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation with the same rate of interest. The third set of claimant, i.e., Gulab Chand was awarded only the interim payment already made amounting to Rs. 12,000/- only.

8. Against this judgment and order, the present appeals have been preferred.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first point raised in these appeals was that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker. On this point, the statements of Gulab Chand, AW 1, Devendra, AW 2 and Suresh Chandra, AW 3, were examined by the Tribunal. It was found that the tanker was being driven with a fast speed rashly and negligently and had dashed against the moped on which the two witnesses and the deceased were sitting. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on this point is fully supported with the testimony of the witnesses and the circumstances that Suraj Singh had died on the spot and the two others were injured.

10. On a public road, it is established principle that heavier the vehicle greater the responsibility. The manner in which the accident had taken place, there is no doubt that the tanker was being driven rashly and negligently. This finding of the Tribunal could not be assailed on any count and the same is confirmed.

11. The second point was in respect of the claim of the heirs of the deceased Suraj Singh. The appellant Leela Bai is the widow of Suraj Singh. Prakash Singh and Mahendra Singh are his sons. Uma is his daughter. This fact is not disputed. These appellants had claimed Rs. 4,90,000/- as compensation. In the evidence, it had come that Suraj Singh was also electrician and used to earn Rs. 30/- per day according to the work being made available. He was usually working for about 15 days in every month. In this respect, the Tribun