( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 24-7-97 passed by III rd Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Satna in Claim Case No. 112/97.

( 2. ) CLAIMANTs case, in brief, is that on 31 -1 -90 deceased Roshanlal and his wife were going to Maihar Market for selling two bags of vegetables in truck no. M. P. A. 8217 by making payment of Rs. 50/ -. The aforesaid truck was driven by respondent No. 3 who is the real brother of Roshanlal. When truck reached near the Tamas River, Bus No. CPU 7587 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 5 dashed against the standing truck. Roshanlal was sitting in the standing truck sustained injuries and taken to the hospital where in the evening he died.

( 3. ) THE Tribunal framed as many as four issues and came to hold that the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger hence, the liability cannot be fastened on the respondent No. 5/insurance Company and the accident took place due to 50% - 50% contributory negligence of both the drivers of bus and truck. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,29,400/- with simple interest from the date of filing of application before the Tribunal to the claimants for the death of deceased Roshanlal and directed that respondent nos. 1 and 2 will jointly and severally make good 50% and rest 50% will be paid by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally with a direction that owner of the truck respondent No. 4 should be return the initial amount of Rs. 12,500/- (awarded for no fault liability) to the respondent No. 5 Insurance Company.

( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before us:-

(I) The compensation granted by Tribunal Rs. 1,29,400/- is neither just and proper and deserves to be enhanced ? (II) Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company of the truck on the ground that deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in truck ? (III) Whether the Tribunal has rightly held that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for 50 % of award and rest 50% will be paid by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally ? (IV) Whether truck owner respondent No. 4 should return the initial amount of Rs. 12,500/- awarded on no fault liability to the respondent No. 5 Insurance Company ?

( 5. ) CLAIMANT Sunita Bai has admitted in Para 8 of her cross-examination that the truck driver/respondent No. 3 is her real brother-in-law and on that day along with her husband after making payment of Rs. 50/- to her brother-in-law she was going in the aforesaid truck with two bags of vegetables to Maihar. She has further admitted that they had a plan to visit religious temple of Maihar. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the a. W. 2 Rambadal who has stated that the deceased along with his wife was not travelling as gratuitous passengers. Respondent No. 3 truck driver has not entered the witness box as a witness. In these circumstances, Tribunal has rightly held that deceased along with his wife was travelling in Truck No. MPA 8217 as gratuitous passengers.

( 6. ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the claimants that deceased roshanlal was aged about 28 years and he was a vegetable seller. Tribunal has assessed his yearly income at Rs. 10,800/- per annum and dependency at rs. 7200/ -. Multiplier of 17 has been applied and the total compensation of rs. 1,22,400 with 12 % interest has been awarded to the claimant by the tribunal. As per the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act the notional income of any person is Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Deceased was maintaining a family therefore, we think he must be earning about Rs. 21,000/-per year. Therefore, the dependency would come to Rs. 14,000/- per annum. Deceased Roshanlal was aged about 28 years, as such multiplier of 17 would apply. Thus, the amount of compensation on this score would come to Rs. 14,000 1