JUDGMENT 1. - It is alleged that on 2nd November, 1986, when the deceased was going on a motor cycle from Deoli to Kekri, suddenly, a Bus RRG 2253 came from the opposite direction, being driven by the respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently, collided with the motor cycle from the wrong side. As a result of the accident, Kesar Lal sustained injuries and died at the spot. The claimant-respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred a claim-petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, which after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- in favour of the claimant respondents No. 1 to 4 vide its judgment and award dated 19th November, 1993. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the owner of the Bus in question, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, has preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) has erred in adopting the multiplier of 35 and it has not taken into account the fact that the wife of the deceased has been given an employment due to the untimely death of the deceased. 4. On the basis of a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Etikala Varalaxmi and others v. The General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (1988)1 ACC 433 , the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that earning by the wife who has been given a job as deceased died in harness should be taken into account while assessing the compensation and the learned Tribunal has not done so. But, in the case of Sudershan Puri and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, 1983 ACJ 489 , this Court has ruled that the wages earned by the widow cannot be taken into account in fixing the dependency and the earnings for the work done by the widow cannot be adjusted against the value of the dependency. In view of the decision of this Court, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, would not extend may help to the appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in not taking into account the wages earned by the widow while fixing the value of the dependency. In view of the decision of this Court, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, would not extend may help to the appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in not taking into account the wages earned by the widow while fixing the value of the dependency. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard is, therefore, not tenable. 5. According to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 ACJ 831 , the multiplier cannot exceed 18. But at the same time the future prospects of promotion, increase in earning and depreciation in purchasing power of money cannot lost sight of. The learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 35 when he died in the accident. The loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 760/- without taking into account the future prospects of promotion, increase in earnings and the general depreciation in the purchasing power of money. If a future prospects, increase in the future earnings and the general purchasing power of the money is taken into account, the loss of dependency would in my opinion come to Rs. 1,520/- instead of Rs. 760/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. If the multiplier is taken to be 16, the loss of dependency would Rs. 1,520 x 12 x 16 = 2,91,840/-. To this sum of Rs. 20,000/- is required to be added for the loss of consortium and compensation ship to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- each to the three children for the loss of love and fatherly affection and care. The total amount would, then, come to Rs. 2,91,840/- + 35,000/- = 3,26,840/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- which is almost equal to the amount so assessed above. In my opinion, therefore, no interference is called for in the quantum of compensation in exercise of appellate powers because the total amount of compensation if calculated on the basis of multiplier 16 comes to almost same amount which the learned Tribunal has awarded. 6. 3,30,000/- which is almost equal to the amount so assessed above. In my opinion, therefore, no interference is called for in the quantum of compensation in exercise of appellate powers because the total amount of compensation if calculated on the basis of multiplier 16 comes to almost same amount which the learned Tribunal has awarded. 6. On the perusal of the evidence and material on record, I find myself broadly in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question and there is no fault on the part of the victim. The findings and the conclusions of the learned Tribunal do not seem to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 7. The upshot of the entire discussion is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to cost.Appeal dismissed. *******