B. C. KANDPAL AND M. M. GHILDIYAL, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the M. V. Act, 1988, has been preferred by the uttaranchal Transport Corporation, against the judgment and award dated 29th October, 2005, passed by the M. A. C. T. /v. F. T. C, dehradun, in M. A. C. P. No. 267/2004, whereby the claim petition was allowed and the claimants were awarded Rs. 3,21,500/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till the date of final payment, payable by the opposite party Uttaranchal transport Corporation. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 30th June, 2004 Arun Kant Dixit went to Haridwar for some personal work. At about 9 a. m. when Arun Kant Dixit was standing in front of the office of Rickshaw union At Rishiksh Bus Stand, the bus owned by the opposite party bearing registration no. U. A. 03-0155, which was being plied by o. P. Paramjeet Singh in a high speed came there and dashed Arun Kant Dixit, due to which he died. The claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition for award of compensation. The deceased was aged 49 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month form his milk business. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing joint written statement. They denied the allegations of the petition for want of knowledge. It was also alleged by the opposite parties that the accident took place due to own fault of the deceased. The deceased was trying to climb the bus and in this process accident had occurred. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 30th June, 2004 at 9 a. m. the bus bearing registration No. U. A. 03-0155 being driven by O. P. No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner dashed sri Arun Kant Dixit in front of rickshaw Union at Bus Stand rishikesh and he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident? (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to get and from whom? ( 5 ) PARTIES led documentary as well a oral evidence in support of their claim. (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to get and from whom? ( 5 ) PARTIES led documentary as well a oral evidence in support of their claim. The learned Tribunal after hearing leaned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the final payment. The compensation was directed to be paid by the o. P. Uattaranchal Transport Corporation. ( 6 ) THE Opposite Party Uttaranchal transport Corporation, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has preferred this appeal before this Court. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus but it had occurred due to own fault of the deceased as the deceased was trying to step in the moving bus and has met to accident. Therefore, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay compensation. ( 9 ) IN order to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending bus, the claimants have examined P. W. 2, Ghansyam Das Gupta. This witness at the time of accident, was the up-Pradhan of Rickshaw Pullers Union, having its office in front of Bus Stand, at rishikesh. He is an eyewitness of the accident. According to this witness on 30th June, 2004 when he was in his office, he saw that the bus of Tanakpur Depot bearing registration no. U. A. 03-0155 came very fastly out of the bus stand from third gate. The bus dashed a person standing on the left side of the road. That person was brought to Government hospital but he died there due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. This witness has lodged the report of the accident at the police station, the copy of which is available on record as paper No. 8-C-1/3. ( 10 ) FROM the side of the opposite parties, the driver of the offending bus Paramjeet singh has been produced as OPW 1. This witness has lodged the report of the accident at the police station, the copy of which is available on record as paper No. 8-C-1/3. ( 10 ) FROM the side of the opposite parties, the driver of the offending bus Paramjeet singh has been produced as OPW 1. This witness has stated that when he took out the bus from the bus stand, 2 or 3 person rushed towards the bus and they tired to climb it, one person could not climb the bus and fell down of the bus. This witness had deposed that the accident was occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased. OPW 2, sushil Kumar is the conductor of the bus. According to him the accident had occurred in the middle of the gate whereas according to OPW 1, Paramjeet Singh the accident took place out side the gate when the bus was taking a turn to reach on the main road. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the deceased was climbing the bus and in this process accident took place. Now it is to be seen when the deceased was trying to climb the bus, then the door of the bus was opened, but OPW 2, Sushil Kumar in his examination in chief has deposed that he had closed the main gate of the bus. Contrary to it, this witness on being questioned by the Tribunal, has deposed that at the time of the accident the door of the vehicle was opened. OPW 1, paramjeet Singh has deposed that before start of the bus, its door was closed. The statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite parties do not inspire confidence. Both the above witnesses have given contradictory statements with regard to the place of accident and the manner in which the accident took place. On the other hand the version of independent eye-witness p. W. 2, Ghanshyam Das Gupta is trustworthy. This witness has also lodged the F. I. R. of the accident in which he had mentioned the factum of rash and negligent driving of the bus. This witness has categorically deposed that the deceased was standing on the left side of the road and the bus negligently at a high speed came there and dashed him. This witness has also lodged the F. I. R. of the accident in which he had mentioned the factum of rash and negligent driving of the bus. This witness has categorically deposed that the deceased was standing on the left side of the road and the bus negligently at a high speed came there and dashed him. No suggestion has been given to this witness as to why he will depose falsely against the Uttaranchal Transport corporation. We find that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. U. A. 03-0155. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded exorbitant amount of compensation. ( 12 ) PERUSAL of record reveals that the claimants have alleged that the deceased was doing the business of milk-selling and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Smt. Savita Dixit, P. W. 1, widow of the deceased, has deposed that her husband used to sell 150 litres milk. She further deposed that her husband used to give Rs. 2,000/- to rs. 2,500/- per month for the family expenses. The claimant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased. She could not give details of the persons to whom her husband used to supply the milk. The Tribunal held that the correct income of the deceased could not be assessed as no reliable evidence has been produced in this regard the tribunal recorded the finding that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and he would have earned at least Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses Rs. 2,000/- per month was calculated the dependency of the claimants on the deceased. In our view the finding of the Tribunal on this point is quite reasonable. ( 13 ) SO far as the age of the deceased is concerned, High School Certificate of the deceased has been produced, according to which his date of birth was 30th June, 1955. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 49 years. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13. ( 13 ) SO far as the age of the deceased is concerned, High School Certificate of the deceased has been produced, according to which his date of birth was 30th June, 1955. Therefore, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 49 years. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13. As per the second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, between the age group of 45 to 50 years, multiplier of 13 has been provided. We find that the Tribunal has adopted the proper multiplier while calculating the compensation. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 2,000/- for loss of estate and rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, which in our view is quite reasonable. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29th October, 2005 passed by the M. A. C. T. / v. F. T. C. Dehradun, in M. A. C. P. No. 267/ 2004 is affirmed. No order as to cost. ( 16 ) THE amount of impugned award, if any, deposited in this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. --- *** --- .