JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Smt. Anita Mategaonkar for the Appellant-Insurance Company and learned Advocate Shri P.R. Agrawal for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Though respondent No.5-driver and respondent No.6-owner of the bus are served by paper publication, they have not appeared.

2. After hearing them what I gather is there is no dispute about involvement of the bus and there is some dispute about negligence of the bus driver. In fact, major area of the dispute is about application of principle of future prospect and multiplier to be applied.

3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) held bus driver respondent No.2 negligent and responsible for the death of Vikram Sasode. He was the passenger in the bus travelling from Pune to Amravati. His monthly income after deduction from salary was considered at Rs.38,640/- and by applying the principles, compensation at the rate of Rs.72,85,000/- along with 6% interest was quantified. The driver, owner and the Insurance Company were directed to pay the compensation. This is the appeal by the