Satish Chandra, J.

Heard Sri Prabhakar Tewari, learned Counsel for the U.P. S. R. T. C. and Sri M. E. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This 'first appeal from order' has been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 13.12.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 101 of 1995, wherein an award of Rs. 1,09,900 was awarded.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.5.1995 deceased Sri Ram Sundar was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 44-A/0787. When the jeep reached near to village Bedupara, the driver got down for toilet by parking the jeep. In the meantime, a U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 42A/6692 of Faizabad Depot was coming and hit the jeep from the backside. Deceased Sri Ram Sunder and another person namely Safat Ahmad had died on the spot. Other passengers also suffered injuries. Separate claim petitions were filed on behalf of both the deceased persons. The present claim petition is pertaining to the claim for the death of deceased Sri Ram Sunder. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 1,57,000 by observing that both vehicles were involved in the accident, so the liability was divided at the ratio of 70:30 per cent. Thus, the appellant has liability to pay Rs. 1,09,900. Not being satisfied, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

4. With this background, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the bus was not involved in the accident as no report was mentioned in the Faizabad Depot. Without prejudice, he further submitted that the accident was a contributory accident where both the bus and jeep were involved, so the compensation will have to be divided at the ratio of 50:50 per cent and certainly not at the ratio 70:30, as held by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Lastly, he submitted that the compensation is on higher side, so he made a request to modify/set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has justified the order of the Tribunal.

6. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and gone through the material available on record from which it appears that in the claim petition pertaining to deceased Sri Safat Ahmad, the bus was held liable for the accident, which was occurred on 9.5.1995 at 9.45 a.m. on Sultanpur-Varanasi road near village Bedupara. Present appeal is pertaining to the same incident. So, the preliminary objection taken by the appellants' counsel is not sustainable, especially when the criminal case was also launched against the driver of the bus late Sri Khan (Crime Case No. 121/1995).

7. From the record, it appears that the jeep was parked on the roadside, which was hit by U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 42A/6692 on 9.5.1995. Two persons sitting in the jeep had died, so there was the greater involvement of the bus in the said accident and the compensation was rightly distributed at the ratio of 70:30 per cent. Regarding quantum, it appears that the deceased Sri Ram Sunder was aged about 42-45 years and he was a labourer, whose income was about Rs. 15,000 per annum. By deducting 1/3 for self expenditure, Rs. 10,000 per annum was taken for the purpose of compensation by the Tribunal. By looking the age, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 15'. Thus, the compensation was computated to Rs. 1,50,000. In addition to that, Rs. 5,000 was awarded for consortium charges and Rs. 2,000 for funeral charges. Thus, total compensation amounting to Rs. 1.57,000 appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Needless to mention that India is one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents. Motor accidents are everyday affairs. A larger number of claims for compensation for injury caused by road accidents are pending in various Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In a fatal accident, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on