JUDGMENT
S.K. Seth, J.
1 It is not in dispute that one Malkhan died as a result of motor accident on 28.8.1983. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle belonged to defendant No. 2, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The application for grant of compensation was made by the legal heirs of the deceased to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 19.12.1983. Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 were the minor children of the deceased. Claimant No. 4 was the widow of the deceased. Claimant No. 5 was the father of the deceased. The total amount of compensation claimed by them against the two defendants, i.e., the driver of the vehicle and its owner was Rs. 95,500/-. After the trial of the claim case, the Tribunal, vide its award dated 19.7.1985 accepted the claim of claimant Nos. 1 to 4 to the extent of Rs. 19,400/-, taking into account the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which had already been paid by the defendant No. 2, Corporation, as ex gratia payment to the said claimants. It was directed by the Tribunal in its award that on the above-said amount of Rs. 19,400/- the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition.
2. It is being aggrieved by the above-said award dated 19.7.1985 made by the Tribunal that the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal in this court. According to them, the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,400/-determined by the Tribunal was too low and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded to them at least an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. It may be mentioned that the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the defendant No. 2, M.P.S.R.T.C., has preferred a cross-objection in this appeal. It is pointed out by them that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the same. It is submitted by the defendant No. 2, Corporation, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants were not entitled to receive any compensation and that the award made by the Tribunal in their favour was liable to be set aside.
3. Now, after perusing the evidence produced in the case, this court is satisfied that there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the defendent No. 2, Corporation, that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was established beyond doubt from the evidence of PW 4, watchman, that after he had opened the gate of the railway crossing the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, came all of a sudden with great speed towards the crossing and hit the deceased who was on a bicycle. To say the least, in the facts and circumstances, the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, was writ large on the face of the events. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that (Sic. the death of) the deceased Malkhan had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the defendant No. 2, Corporation, is proper and does not call for interference in this appeal.
4. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is concerned, certain relevant facts have been duly established from the evidence produced in the case by both the parties. The deceased was a cattle grazer and on the date of incident was aged about 50 years. It was reasonably established that he was earning about Rs. 250/-per month. It was rightly assumed by the Tribunal that out of the said monthly income the deceased was spending about Rs. 125/-per month on the members of his family. Again, it was reasonably assumed by the Tribunal that the deceased Malkhan was in good health on the date of his death and would have continued to live for another 15-20 years. Taking into account all the above-said facts, it is difficult to find any fault with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to receive a total amount of Rs. 20,400/- as compensation from the two defendants. However, it may be mentioned that the claimants had made a separate claim of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for mental pain and physical suffering suffered by the deceased as a result of the accident. It is settled law that the above-said claim made by the claimants fell under the category of general damages and was admissible in a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In the said connection, the relevant head under which such a claim could be made under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act was attracted. It has to be assumed that such damages would have formed part of the estate left behind by the deceased and, therefore, the benefit of the same would devolve on his legal representatives.
5. It is indeed surprising that the above-said claim of Rs. 10,000/- made by the claimants was brushed aside lightly by the Tribunal without giving any cogent reasons for doing so. In the opinion of this court, bearing in mind the manner in which the accident in question has taken place, as also the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the deceased in the said accident, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- claimed by the claimants under the head of damages for pain and suffering could not be said to be unreasonable or exaggerated. Thus, it has to be held that in addition to the compensation of Rs. 20,400/-determined by the Tribunal, the claimants were also entitled to receive further amount of Rs. 10,000/- as general damages on account of pain and suffering suffered by the deceased as a result of the accident.
6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 19.7.1985 given by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 19,400/- the two defendants shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs. 29,400/-to the claimant Nos. 1 to 4. Consequently, the two defendants shall also be liable to pay interest on the above-said amount of Rs. 29,400/- at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition, i.e., 19.12.1983 till realisation. The Tribunal has already indicated as to how the amount of Rs. 19,400/- plus the interest due thereon would be distributed amongst the four claimants. It is directed that the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, together with interest due thereon, shall be distributed equally amongst the four claimants.
7. The defendants-respondents shall pay Rs. 500/- as costs of this appeal to the claimants-appellant Nos. 1 to 4.
8. Needless to say, in view of success of the appeal filed by the claimants-appellants, in the manner as mentioned above, there is no merit in the cross-objection preferred on behalf of the defendant No. 2, Corporation. Consequently, the said cross-objection is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs with regard to the cross-objection.