J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has arisen out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Ahmedabad in Motor Accident claim petition no. 129 of 1982. The appellants are the original opponents. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT nos. 1 to 4 are the original claimants who filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming Rs 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for the untimely and premature death of their bread-winner in a road accident which occurred on 8. 6. 1982 at 8 p. m. Deceased Nareshkumar Kantilal Shah was a pillion rider on scooter no. GJH 4499. There was collision between an AMTS bus no. GTA 8401 and the said scooter, as a result of which, the pillion rider was crushed under the bus and he died instantaneously. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal found the driver of the bus solely responsible for the happening of the unfortunate accident. Appellant no. 2 is the bus driver, appellant no. 3 is the owner and appellant no. 1 is the insurer in respect of the offending bus. Thus, insofar as the question of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal found that the scooterist was not responsible and the blame lay only on the part of the driver of the said bus. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of Rs 1,27,500/- against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record. The deceased was aged about 25 who was doing account-writing work. The Tribunal assessed the dependency value at Rs. 500/- per month. The Tribunal recorded that the earning of the deceased was Rs. 700/- per month and after deducting Rs. 200/- for his personal expenses, an amount of Rs. 500/- was considered as dependency value. Thus, the applicants were found entitled to Rs. 500 X 12 = 6000/- per annum. Multiplier of 20 was adopted by the Tribunal, with the result, the original applicants are awarded Rs. 6000 X 20 = 1,20,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,500/- under the head of loss of expectation of life. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. ( 5 ) THE original opponents have challenged the judgment and award passed by the tribunal in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,500/- under the head of loss of expectation of life. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. ( 5 ) THE original opponents have challenged the judgment and award passed by the tribunal in this appeal. ( 6 ) INSOFAR as the issue of negligence is concerned, there is nothing on record to even remotely indicate that the sole blameworthiness found on the part of the bus driver is wrongly assessed and decided. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the applicant and the panchnama, ex. 22 and in the absence of evidence of the driver of the bus. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the sole negligence of the bus driver is required to be confirmed. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as quantum of compensation is concerned, it cannot be said that it is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled proposition of law that in the matter like one on hand, unless it is shown that the amount of compensation is very excessive or grossly inadequate, the appellate court will not interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that 20 years purchase factor while determining the amount of compensation under the head of future pecuniary loss is on higher side. But at the same time, the tribunal has failed to take into consideration the future prospects and future earning of the deceased who was 25 years old at the relevant time when the accident occurred. Therefore, the over-all assessment of Rs. 1,20,000/- under that head cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. It may also be mentioned that the Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs. 7,500/- under the head of loss of expectation of life which is also on lower side. Thus, considering over all picture emerging from the record and facts and circumstances of the case, determination of amount of compensation at Rs. 1,27,500/- is just and reasonable. In light of the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the impugned award and judgment is justified, with the result that, the present appeal merits dismissal. Thus, considering over all picture emerging from the record and facts and circumstances of the case, determination of amount of compensation at Rs. 1,27,500/- is just and reasonable. In light of the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the impugned award and judgment is justified, with the result that, the present appeal merits dismissal. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. .