LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the owner of the Bus hearing No. MYT 3722 against the Judgment and Award dated 10. 11. 81 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Dharwad. in M. V. C. No. 437/ 79, awarding compensation of Rs. 30,200/- to the wife and children of the deceased mohammed Ghouse Sunkad. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimants that on 24. 6. 79 at about 12. 30 p. m. . one mohammed Ghouse Sunkad, the deceased, was killed when a Bus in which he was travelling on Hangal Gondi road met with an accident. Along with him a number of passengers in the bus were injured. His wife and children filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 77,000/- as detailed in para-22 of the petition. According to them, the deceased was only 38 years old, he was doing business in purchase of parched rice and also running a tailoring establishment. His monthly income from both the sources was Rs. 1000/ -. Respondent-1 is the owner of the bus, who resisted the claim on the ground that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and he is not liable to pay any compensation. In the alternative, he contended that the compensation claimed is on the higher side respondent-2 is the driver, who was driving the bus at the time of the accident. Respondent-3 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured. The 1st Respt. also resisted the claim that in case the liability to be passed on to him, the amount is payable by the insurance company and not by himself. But the insurer contended that his liability is limited to only Rs. 5. 000/- as contemplated in Section 95{2){b) of the motor VEHICLES ACT, 1939. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed:i) Whether the claimants prove that the deceased Sri. Mohammed Gouse S/o mohammed Ismail Sunkad died in the bus accident on 24. 6. 1979 at about 12. 30 a. m. near Kondoji cross on Hanagal Gondi road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. MYT 3722 by the respondent No. 2? ii) What compensation the claimant is entitled, if so, from whom? iii) What award? ( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 1 examined P. Ws. 6. 1979 at about 12. 30 a. m. near Kondoji cross on Hanagal Gondi road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. MYT 3722 by the respondent No. 2? ii) What compensation the claimant is entitled, if so, from whom? iii) What award? ( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 1 examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and got exhibited the documents exts. P. 1 to P. 30. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was due to rash and negligent act of the Driver of the bus in question and awarded compensation of to the claimants along with interest even, and limited the liability of the insurance Company to Rs. 5,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said Award, the owner of the bus has preferred this appeal and the wife and children of the deceased have filed their cross-objections and prayed therein that the compensation awarded to them is on lower side. ( 4 ) IN view of Section-95 (2), it is clear that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to only Rs. 5,000/- as the deceased was passenger in the bus. Therefore, the liability of the Insurer fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- is just and proper. ( 5 ) SRI. F. V. Patil, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 20% from the total compensation awarded to the claimants under the head 'pecuniary loss' as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. The Tribunal erred in deducting that amount by adopting a small multiplier of 10. In such cases, this Court has consistently not deducted the amount for lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life as the dependant is only 30 years and the deceased was 38 years. He also submitted that the span of life considered by this court is 85. Therefore, no deduction ought to have been made by the Tribunal. We agree with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel and hold that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 4,800/- towards lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life. Wherefore, we are inclined to interfere with the deduction of Rs. 4,800. 00 in the award of the Tribunal. After having that amount added, the global compensation comes to rs. 35,000. 00. We agree with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel and hold that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 4,800/- towards lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life. Wherefore, we are inclined to interfere with the deduction of Rs. 4,800. 00 in the award of the Tribunal. After having that amount added, the global compensation comes to rs. 35,000. 00. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 35,000. 00. Out of rs. 35,000. 00 the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 5000. 00 to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment and the remaining amount shall be paid by the owner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The respondents shall pay the costs before the Tribunal. The compensation awarded is apportioned to the claimants in the following order: i) Rs. 11,375. 00 to the Wife - respondent No. 1. ii) Rs. 3,375. 00 to each of respondents -2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 - daughters. iii) Rs. 6,750. 00 to respondent-4 - Son. Respondents 2 to 7 are minors. Their amounts shall be deposited in the Fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank and interest may be drawn by respondent No. 1 for the welfare of the minors till they attain majority. No costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .