Honble DALELA, J. – It is alleged that on 31.8.1981, the deceased boarded the bus No. URC 9641 belonging to Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, for going to Nathdwara from Vrindaban. Driver of the bus in question drove the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the bus collided with the standing truck which was parked on the right side. The deceased sustained injuries, and died in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, (for short the `Tribunal). The learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 88,320/-as a compensation. (2). Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant appe- llants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. (3). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (4). In the motor accident claim cases where there are more than one claimants common appropriate multiplier should be adopted for all the claimants. Different multiplier for different claimants should not be required to be adopted. (5). The learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 51 at the time of accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age should be 11. (6). The learned Tribunal has assessed the gross income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 1,200/- p.m. While estimating the value of loss of dependency, the future advancement in career and increase in earning cannot be lost sight of. It will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present income of the deceased. In the case of G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (1), Honble the Supreme Court after taking the future advancement in career and increase in earning into account has estimated a higher sum as gross income of the deceased. In my opinion, having regard to the future prospects and increase in earning, a higher estimate of gross income should be made by adding 50% in the case in hand. Thus, the total gross of income of the deceased in the case in hand should be Rs. 1,800/- p.m. Debucting 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the value of loss of dependency would be Rs. Thus, the total gross of income of the deceased in the case in hand should be Rs. 1,800/- p.m. Debucting 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the value of loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,200/- p.m. With reference to the multiplier 11, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,200x12x11 = 1,58,400/-. To this, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- should be added as compensation on account of the loss of love and consortium to the wife of the deceased, and, Rs. 10,000/- should further be added as compensation for the loss of fatherly affection and care to the two children of the deceased. Thus, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,58,400+ 15,000 + 10,000 = 1,83,400/-. The total compensation is required to be enhancedc to this extent. (7). No other point has been urged and pressed before me. (8). In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The total amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,83,400 from that of Rs. 88,320/- as awarded by the lear- ned Tribunal. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. (9). The remaining part, terms and conditions of the award, are maintained.