( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th January 1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), junagadh, in M. A. C. Petition Nos. 220 of 1985, which was filed by the heirs of the driver of a jeep who died in an accident involving the jeep and a bus of the appellant Corporation.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellants driver was negligent to the extent of 2/3rd and the jeep driver was negligent to the extent of 1/3rd only. According to the appellant the jeep driver was fully and solely negligent.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal has considered the F. I. R. , the Panchnama and the surrounding circumstances and the S. T. Driver though available had nothing to contribute much; while he was the best person to depose. Having regard to the circumstances and viewing from the Panchnama including the distance covered by the bus even after the accident which was about 60 fts. whereas the brake marks were only 7 ft. the ratio of negligence as fixed by the Tribunal is just and hence it does not require any interference. Mr. Desais argument that the bus was found on the correct side of the road cannot make any dent to that finding because the bus had already covered 60 fts. after the impact.

( 4 ) AS regards the quantum of income, the Tribunal has assessed the business income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000. 00 per year on the basis of documentary evidence of the assessment orders and the accounts of partnership firm of which the deceased was a partner. The loss of agricultural income was arrived at Rs. 10,000. 00. Rupees 30,000/- was determined as the value of personal supervision of the deceased. The total loss of income was determined by the Tribunal to be Rs. 40,000. 00 per year. An amount of 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in a family consisting of six members, which is also on the higher side. No consideration is given to the prospects of future increase.

( 5 ) MR. Desai, however, strenuously contended that even if the Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000. 00 the Tribunal grossly erred in applying the multiplier of 18 and that the same could not have been more than 15 as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. It is true that the Tribunal after determining the datum figure at Rs. 40,000. 00 per year has applied the multiplier of 18 making it an aggregate amount of Rs. 7,20,000. 00, out of which the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased making it Rs. 4,80,000. 00 and further reduced the amount to Rs. 3,20,000/ - by deducting 1/3rd amount on account of negligence of the deceased having been assessed at 1/3rd. Thus, the Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs. 3,20,000. 00 under the head of loss of dependency benefit and thereafter added further amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 as damages for loss to the estate, Rs. 15,000. 00 towards compensation for loss of consortium and also Rs. 5,000. 00 towards funeral expenses.

( 6 ) EVEN though Mr. Desai appears to be right in urging the above contention regarding multiplier in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered after the Tribunal made the Award in the instant case, viz. , G. M. , Kerala S. R. T. C. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 and in the case of Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. , 1996 (3) SCC 179, acceptance of the said contention will not make any difference to the final amount arrived at by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As stated above the annual loss is assessed at Rs. 40,000. 00 without taking into consideration future increase and further prospects of the deceased. Adopting the usual multiplier of 15, as the deceased was aged 32, the total amount would be Rs. 6,00,000. 00, from which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - can be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the family cons