JUDGMENT : D.C. Gheewala, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3 at Ahmedabad in M.A.C. Application No. 16 of 1979. The appellant filed a claim petition claiming Rs.1,75,000/- from the opponents and alleged that on 19-9-1978 deceased Girish who was their son, was travelling by a rickshaw at about 11.45 a.m. While the said rickshaw was passing by Galia Limadi road near Ashawara Bridge, a Municipal bus bearing No. 4748 came at an excessive speed and collided with the rickshaw. The rickshaw was thrown away and the deceased was crushed under the rickshaw. He succumbed to his injuries. Alleging that the deceased was already holding a B.D.S. degree and was prosecuting his studies for M.D.S. he had very bright prospects in life and his sister being an American national he had every chance of migrating there, where his prospects would have been still better, the said amount was claimed. 2. The claim was resisted by both the sets of opponents, each alleging that the other driver was negligent. It was also insisted on the ground that the claim was grossly inflated. The learned Tribunal, after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the rickshaw driver was not at all to be blamed and the AMTS bus driver was solely responsible for the said mishap. The rickshaw driver, its owner and Insurers were exonerated whereas the bus driver, AMTS Corporation and the Oriental Insurance Co. being Insurer of the said bus were held responsible. 3. The learned Tribunal computed the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per annum after computing the income at Rs.1,400/- per month and deducting some amount for personal expenses for the deceased. However, the Tribunal held that the applicant No. 2 father being the retired pensioner he cannot be considered to be dependent. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal only held that Rs.300/- would have been the dependency value and computing at that rate had awarded Rs.54,000/- taking multiplier of 15. Adding thereto Rs.5,000/- by way of conventional figure for loss of expectation of life, total amount of Rs.59,000/- was awarded. 4. The claimants being aggrieved by the same have approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 5. Regarding the finding of negligence, we feel that the Tribunal has perfectly justified in arriving at a conclusion that it did. Adding thereto Rs.5,000/- by way of conventional figure for loss of expectation of life, total amount of Rs.59,000/- was awarded. 4. The claimants being aggrieved by the same have approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 5. Regarding the finding of negligence, we feel that the Tribunal has perfectly justified in arriving at a conclusion that it did. Looking to the fact that the deceased was already holding a bachelor degree in Dental Surgery and was at the relevant time serving as House man and prosecuting his studies for the Master's degree, the tribunal seen to have erred on the conservative side while determining the income of the deceased at Rs.15,00/- per month. Though it was one of the up-predictable and imponderable in the case of the deceased, it can be said with a fair amount of justification, that his sister being an American national, the be ceased had very bright prospects for immigrating to the State. He had already obtained a passport for the same which is on the record. Even if we were to discount the possibility of the deceased even migrating to the States, then also the average income of the deceased for a period of years could not have been computed at anything less than Rs.2000/-. This figure we have arrived at by making allowance for his tax liabilities as also the liability which we would have incurred in course of time by marrying and nursing his own family. We have also taken into consideration his future prospects where his average income would have been much more than the above figure. With this figure, his annual income would have been Rs.24,000/- and as he was young in years and there being evidence of longevity in the family, 15 years' multiplier as accepted by the Tribunal appears to be quite reasonable. This would bring the figure of Rs.3,60,000/- but as the appellants are the parents of the deceased, they would fell in the category of dependence as per Section 1-A of the Fatal Accident Act and the Tribunal was distinctly in an error in taking into consideration the Pensioner's status of the father and holding him not entitled to claim. As the parents are claimants, 2/3rd amount shall have to be deducted from the above. Under these circumstances, Rs.2,40,000/- shall have to be deducted from the above amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. As the parents are claimants, 2/3rd amount shall have to be deducted from the above. Under these circumstances, Rs.2,40,000/- shall have to be deducted from the above amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. The net amount claimable by the applicants would therefore, come to Rs.1,20,000/- and adding thereto conventional figure of Rs.5,000/-for the loss of expectation of life, the total amount claimable by them would come to Rs.1,25,000/-. Both the appellants would be entitled equally for this amount, the opponents who have been held responsible, namely, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 shall be jointly and severally responsible. Appeal against test of the respondents that is respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. The respondents, who have been held responsible for the same, shall pay the said amount of balance if the amount awarded by the Tribunal is already deposited or remitted with interest at 6% from the date of accident till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs throughout on the above amount. Appeal allowed.