JUDGMENT 1. - Claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, (for short 'the Tribunal'), alleging that on 16.8.1989, a Bus RNP 2489, was coming from Jaipur side driven by respondent No. 8 rashly and negligently & hit the deceased Peetam, who was going on a cycle, and, as a result of the accident, Peetam died. And, the claimants-Legal Representatives (L.Rs.) of the deceased Peetam, have claimed compensation on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the accident. The appellant is the owner of the Bus, in question. It has contested the claim, and, the learned Tribunal -vide award dated 27.2.1993, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,20,800, to the claimants. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The claimants have examined two eye witnesses of the accident. They are Jal Singh (AW 2) and and Sukhdarshan Lal (AW 3). Both the witnesses have deposed that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence in driving of the Bus by its driver, respondent No. 8. The appellant has examined driver, respondent No. 8, as NAW 1. In the cross examination, driver, NAW 1, has admitted that the dead body of the deceased lay on Kachcha left footpath of the road. He has also stated that the Bus was taken in the Kachcha footpath on the left side of the road. From this site map of the occurrence, Ex.P 1, it is evident that the accident took place on the Kachcha footpath, which is on the side of the road. This goes to show that the Bus left the main road and went on its left side on the Kachcha footpath of the road, and, thus, it hit the deceased-cyclist off the road. Evidently, there seems to be no doubt that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver, respondent No. 8. The learned Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Bus. 4. Evidently, there seems to be no doubt that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver, respondent No. 8. The learned Tribunal has committed no error in holding that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Bus. 4. Therefore, no interference is called for, in the findings and the conclusions of the learned Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Bus, in question, and , in the said accident, the deceased Peetam died. 5. The age of the deceased was assessed by the learned Tribunal to be 32, at the time of accident. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age, should be 17. Basanti (AW 1) wife of the deceased, has deposed that her husband used to earn Rs. 60/-per day. Jal Singh (AW 2) has stated that the daily earning of the deceased was Rs. 50-55 per day. Sukhdarshan Lal (AW 3) stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 70/- per day. The combined evidence of above three witnesses, goes to indicate that the average earning of the deceased, was Rs. 50/- per day, or Rs. 1,500/- per month. There is evident rebuttal with regard to the earning of the deceased. On the present income of the deceased at the time of death, the gross income of the deceased can safely be held to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. After deducting ⅓rd on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,000/- p.m., or, Rs. 12,000/- per year. With reference to the multiplier 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,44,800/-. To this Rs. 15,000/- is required to be added as compensation for the loss of consortium and love to the wife of the deceased, and, Rs. 30,000/- on account of the loss of fatherly affection and care to the six children of the deceased. Thus, adding Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 2,44,800/-, the total amount of compensation, comes to Rs. 2,89,800/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,20,800/-, that is to say it has awarded Rs. 31,000/- more. 6. The amount of compensation of Rs. Thus, adding Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 2,44,800/-, the total amount of compensation, comes to Rs. 2,89,800/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,20,800/-, that is to say it has awarded Rs. 31,000/- more. 6. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,89,800/- has been arrived at on the estimation of loss of dependency on the present income of the deceased at the time of accident. In the case of G.M., Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present income of the deceased at the time of accident. Hon'ble The Supreme Court after taking into account the future advancement in career and increase in earning, has estimated a higher income of the deceased. Hon'ble The Supreme Court has held that while estimating the value of loss of dependency, the future advancement in career and increase in earning, should not be lost sight of. Having regard to the future prospects and increase in earning, a higher estimate of gross income, should be made by adding at least 50% in the income which the deceased was earning at the time of accident. If the loss of dependency is estimated on such a higher estimate of income of the deceased, then, it would even exceed the total amount compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. In the circumstances, in my opinion, there is no justification in reducing the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants. In my opinion, therefore, no interference is called for, on the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. No other point has been pressed and argued before me. 8. In my opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******