JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the award given by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 2-11-83, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,59,000/- in favour of claimant Veena Kurnari and Kumari Jyotibala for death of deceased Awatar Singh an employee of the defence services. Likewise, he has also awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 45,360/- to Harbanslal and Pushpa Devi the claimants of deceased Rajendra Mohan who was also a defence personnel. 2. Against this award, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed the present appeal. 3. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that on December 1, 1981 at about 3 P.M. on Pokaran-Jaisalmer Road two motor cycles collided with the bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') bearing No. RSG 6270 which was going from Pokaran to Jodhpur. It is alleged that both the deceased Awatar Singh and Rajendra Mohan were constables in the defence and they were going their own motor cycles. They collided with this bus on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus. As a result of this accident, both Awatar Singh as well as Rajendra Mohan died. Therefore, two claim petitions one by Veena Kumar and Kum. Jyotibala dependents of deceased Awatar Singh and another by Harbanslal and Pushpa Devi on account of death of their son Rajendra Mohan were filed Claims were contested by the driver of the bus as well as the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The plea taken by the driver was that the bus was standing. Both the deceased died in defence exercise. The pleas taken by the non-claimants were over-ruled by the Tribunal. Tribunal relied on the statement of Mr. Agarwal, who was travelling in a jeep and witnessed the whole accident. From the testimony of Mr. Agarwal, it was found that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of this, these Jawans lost their lives. 4. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the bus of the Corporation was negligent and deaths were caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus. 5. I think the finding given by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case appears to be correct. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the bus of the Corporation was negligent and deaths were caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus. 5. I think the finding given by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case appears to be correct. Testimony of Mr. Agarwal clinches the issue and nothing has been brought about in his cross-objection. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly relied on the testimony of Mr. Agarwal and found that the bus collided with the motor cycles on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 6. The next question, which arises for consideration is whether the award of compensation given by the Tribunal is excessive or not. In the present case, Awatar Singh deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 571/- per month and deducting l/3rd which he would have spent on himself at least he would be spending Rs. 400/- on the maintenance of his wife and daughter. Thus, dependency of Rs. 400/- was accepted, I think rightly so. Awatar Singh was aged 28 years, therefore, the Tribunal has employed a multiplier of 33 years and on that basis amount comes to 1,58,400/- and round figure comes to Rs. 1,59,000/-. This amount of compensation also cannot be said to be too excessive. 7. Now coming to the award of compensation awarded to the dependents of deceased Rajendra Mohan. In case of Rajendra Mohan, it was found that his parents were aged 55 years and 43 years. Rajendra Mohan was drawing salary of Rs. 497.70 P.M. Therefore, round figure comes to Rs. 500/- he must be spending l/3rd of his own and he would be spending Rs. 180/- on his parents. Each parent was deprived of a sum of Rs. 90/-dependency per head. Learned Judge employed a multiplier of 15 years in case of his father and multiplier of 27 years in case of his mother. He awarded Rs. 16,200/- to father and a sum of Rs. 29,160/- to mother. 8. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 45,360/- was awarded to parents. This amount also in the present case cannot be said to be too high, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Rather compensation awarded to dependents of Rajendra Mohan appears to be on the lower side only. 9. 29,160/- to mother. 8. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 45,360/- was awarded to parents. This amount also in the present case cannot be said to be too high, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Rather compensation awarded to dependents of Rajendra Mohan appears to be on the lower side only. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******