M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard both the learned Advocates. This is one more of the horrifying accidents where the guilty parties are the KSRTC drivers and wherein, not one but two of the Corporation's buses are involved. The deceased was boarding the State Transport vehicle when another bus belonging to the Corporation approached at high speed and collided with the bus in question, resulting in, the deceased being crushed under the vehicle and killed on the spot. The Tribunal after evaluating the various heads awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,13,250/ -. After deduction, the extra amount has been paid with cost and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. This order has been assailed in the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate who represents the appellant has pointed out to me that there is an obvious error in awarding compensation under head No. 6, in as far as the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20. Having regard to the ages in question, he has demonstrated that the multiplier of 15 would be the correct one and that to this extent the compensation awarded under this head would have to be reduced to Rs. 24,000/ -. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate who represents the claimants submitted that having regard to the position in law that he cannot dispute the correctness of the same and the multiplier of 15 would have to be applied, but he submitted that on a consideration of other reasons, this court ought not to disturb the quantum. So far as the first submission of the appellant is concerned, this Court is required to uphold it. However, before directing that the compensation amount should be reduced, it would be necessary to deal with the other submissions and the reverse arguments that can be canvassed on behalf of the claimants. ( 4 ) THE respondents' learned Advocate demonstrated to me that the tribunal has recorded the finding to the effect that overall income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/- per month and that he was employed with the titan Company, and having regard to his age, that the potential of his income going up is required to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has for some strange reason adopted a figure of Rs. 1,000/- per month and that he was employed with the titan Company, and having regard to his age, that the potential of his income going up is required to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has for some strange reason adopted a figure of Rs. 400/- for purpose of considering actual income and applied the multiplier and respondent's learned Advocate demonstrated to me that it is an error because even if 1/3 rd deduction is made that the figure of Rs. 700/- ought to have been accepted. There is considerable substance in this submission because if this figure is to be applied for compensation, the amount under head No. 6 would stand decreased by Rs. 24,000/- on one hand but increased by rs. 30,000/- on the other hand. It is true that the respondents have not filed any appeal and therefore, the learned Advocate submits that it is difficult for him to ask for enhancement but he submits that if the Court has to accept this computation that there would be no justification in disturbing the earlier order that has been passed. I am in agreement with this submission and even though the appellants are technically entitled to succeed in this appeal, the respondents are not entitled for enhancement. ( 5 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate also pointed out to me, and perhaps with justification, that so far as the head Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, that these heads are completely overlapping and that they could normally be grouped with head No. 6. There is some substance in this submission, but I am not inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court, as far as interference with the figures are concerned for only one reason, namely, that if I were to uphold the submission and scale down the compensation awarded under these heads, the rashness and the negligence as also the seriousness and the manner in which the accident occurred would leave this Court with no option except to award exemplary costs as compensation. Having regard to these factors, and these reasons, even though I uphold the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant under these heads, I am not inclined to disturb the earlier award. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the above said position even though the appellant technically succeeds in this appeal, the award shall remain undisturbed. Having regard to these factors, and these reasons, even though I uphold the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant under these heads, I am not inclined to disturb the earlier award. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the above said position even though the appellant technically succeeds in this appeal, the award shall remain undisturbed. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount with the Tribunal within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of this order. On receipt of the amount, the Tribunal shall proceed to disburse the same as directed in the award subject to the following modifications. ( 7 ) AS far as the claimant widow is concerned the Tribunal shall deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- with a nationalised or Commercial bank close to the place where the respondent 1 claimant-wife is living, which amount shall be deposited in her name and in the name of her two sons jointly. The amount shall be deposited for a period of 5 years renewable for 3 further periods of 5 years each. The interest shall be payable quarterly to the claimant-wife directly. On expiry of the aforesaid period, the amount shall be paid to the claimant-wife or the surviving depositors, as the case may be without any further Court orders. The balance of the amount after making these investments shall be given to the claimant 1. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .