JUDGMENT K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 31st July, 1984, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1983. 2. The case of the claimants-respondents before the Tribunal was that on 15.8.1982 Robin Benedict Toppo (deceased) along with A.K. Lukus was going on the national highway on motor cycle Rajdoot No. CPT 6026 to Durg from Raipur. They were plying the motor cycle on their side, meanwhile a bus of M.P.S.R.T.C. No. CPH 8152 which was going from Durg to Raipur (opposite direction) being driven rashly and negligently by Ajay Kumar Sharma, driver of M.P.S.R.T.C, dashed against the Rajdoot motor cycle near Rajkumar College, Raipur on the national highway which caused fatal injuries to the deceased R.B. Toppo, who died on the spot. Several injuries were caused to the pillion rider A.K. Lukus, who was sitting behind the deceased on the motor cycle. The applicants claimed an amount of Rs. 4,43,800/- as compensation under different heads. According to the applicants-claimants at the time of death of the deceased he was 38 years of age and was working as Sr. Loco Driver in the Department of Transport and Diesels Organisation, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai and was drawing Rs. 1,500/- per month. 3. The respondents denied the claim of the claimants. It was emphatically denied that the injuries arising out of the accident were owing to the negligence or rash act on the part of the driver of the bus. According to them, in fact the motor-cyclist, i.e., (the deceased) unexpectedly and in most imprudent and negligent manner took abrupt turning towards the approaching bus and as such the accident was caused due to his own fault only. 4. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by Ajay Kumar Sharma, driver of the bus and the deceased R.B. Toppo died as a result of the injuries received in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal held that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and was aged about 38 years. The Tribunal, however, held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/- plus future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 5. The Claims Tribunal held that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and was aged about 38 years. The Tribunal, however, held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/- plus future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appellants, General Manager and Divisional Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C., have filed this appeal. The driver of the bus has not filed any appeal. 6. Before this Court, the learned Counsel for the appellants agitated mainly two points, one that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased (driver of the motor cycle) and that the amount awarded is excessive. Even the deduction on awarding lump sum payment has not been made by the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimants opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 7. On the point of negligence of the deceased, driver of the motor cycle, the appellants have not examined anyone, even the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus has not filed any appeal against the award. A.K. Lukus, the pillion rider, who was examined by the claimants, has answered in cross-examination put by the appellants that since the bus came abruptly in front of the motor cycle, the deceased Toppo had no chance to swerve it to any other side. This witness has stated that the bus was in high speed and dashed against the motor cycle on the front with the result that both the deceased and this witness fell down on the left side of the road. He has stated that they were going on their own side and the road was 20-25 feet wide. There was no reason for the appellants not to have examined the bus driver, the conductor or any passenger from the bus in order to show that the driver of the bus was not negligent, but it was the driver of the motor cycle (deceased) who was negligent and responsible for the accident. After assessing the evidence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is also pertinent to note that the driver of the bus has not challenged the findings. After assessing the evidence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is also pertinent to note that the driver of the bus has not challenged the findings. The appellants are vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the appellants that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, i.e., deceased R.B. Toppo. 8. Regarding the quantum of amount awarded, the only submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that 20 per cent should have been deducted when lump sum amount was awarded. The learned Counsel has not cited any ruling to this effect. We find the Claims Tribunal in its award has relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh 1983 ACJ 152 (MP), wherein it has been held that only ex gratia payment has to be deducted from out of the pecuniary advantages received by the family due to death of the bread-earner. At the time of death, the deceased was 38 years of age and was drawing Rs. 1,500/- per month. He had chances for future promotions also. The monthly dependency of the family was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month and the multiplier of 15 was adopted. Relying on the principles laid down in Hema Ramaswami v. KM. Valarence Panjani 1981 ACJ 288 (Madras) and also in Amarjit Kaur v. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. 1981 ACJ 495 (Delhi), the figure arrived at by calculation is Rs. 1,44,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. The normal expectancy of life these days is taken to be more than 70 years. In that case he could have lived for about 33 years. If he would have retired at the age of 60 years then too he could have worked for 20 years more. Looking to these considerations, the multiplier of 15 adopted in this case is not excessive. Therefore, on the point of quantum also there seems to be no justification in reducing the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 9. The appeal has, therefore, no substance which is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.