1. This appeal has been filed by the original claimants for enhancement of compensation. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts of the case since the opponents have not filed any appeal or cross-objections challenging the finding of negligence or the compensation already awarded. It is the claimants who alone have come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we have gone through the entire evidence on record. In para 11 of the judgment the learned Member of the Tribunal has considered the case of Hasudeo, who is husband of Parvatabai, who died in the accident, Parvatabai was a young lady and according to the evidence on record, the learned Member came to the conclusion that she must be earning a very paltry amount of Rs. 50/- to 60/- per month and must be spending the whole of it on her self and, therefore, on that count her husband could not have claimed any compensation as there was no dependency as such. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Taking any view of the matter, whether the lady was earning or not, it is reasonable to presume that the services rendered by her to the family could be calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and on that basis, the husband is entitled to get compensation. It is not that only because the woman is not earning otherwise, she is not rendering any service to the family. To use the expression of the Supreme Court, this will be contrary to the 'gender justice'. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that Parvatabai would have contributed at least Rs. 100/-'s worth to the family and applying the multiplier of 15, compensation could safely be arrived at the figure of Rs. 18,00/- on that count. In addition to this, at least the husband will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,000/- for the loss of company of the wife and other general damages. Therefore, rounding up this figure, in our opinion, petitioner No. 1 was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the loss of Parvatabai. The learned Member of the Tribunal has only granted Rs. 1000/- as compensation which is merely an excuse for the compensation and can in no sense of the term be described as compensation for the loss of wife.
3. So for as compensation for the injury to the person of claimant No. 2 Kumari Taibai is concerned, in our opinion the learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that her disability was only 20% and on that basis the learned Member has rightly granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to this young girl, aged 14 years. Therefore, no interference is called for on that count.
4. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. Petitioner No. 1 to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. To that extent, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified. It is needless to say that the petitioner No. 1 will be entitled to get interest on this amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Petitioner No. 1 will also be entitled to get the costs of this appeal on Rs. 24,000/- which are granted to him in this appeal. Since petitioner No. 1 comes from the Bhil community and is an illiterate person, on the deposit of the amount the Tribunal will have to pass appropriate orders in consonance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Nov Bharat Builders and Anr. v. Smt. Pyarabai w/o Dadu Mane, : 1984(2)BomCR9 .