1. This appeal is directed against the award/judgment dated 23rd of April, 2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, whereby and whereunder claim petition filed by claimants-victims of vehicular accident came to be granted and appellant/ insurer came to be saddled with the liability. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while addressing arguments frankly conceded that the offending vehicle was insured and the driver was having valid and effective driving licence but stated and argued that the compensation awarded is exorbitant, excessive and on higher side. 3. Victims--respondents 1 to 5 have also filed cross objections/ appeal and have prayed for enhancing the compensation awarded. 4. The question involved is whether tribunal has awarded just compensation or otherwise? 5. In order to return finding, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case herein; 6. Claimants-respondents 1 to 5 have averred in the claim petition that on 16th of November, 2003, Dr. Zubair Ahmad was driving Maruati Car which was hit by a passenger bus-offending vehicle bearing registration No.JKP/1304 which was being driven by Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, driver, rashly and negligently at Galandar, Srinagar-Jammu National Highway. Dr. Zubair Ahmad, Miss Arooja Akhter and Miss Sageera sustained injuries. Dr. Zubair Ahmad, succumbed to injuries and other two injured became permanently disabled. It is also averred in the claim petition that Dr. Zubair Ahmad was drawing Rs.21,300/- as pay and was also earning Rs.66,000/- per month being a reputed Radiologist and Sonographist and have also claimed compensation on the ground of loss of earnings and dependency, love and affection, consortium, funeral expenses and on other allied grounds. The following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether on 16.11.2003, the deceased Dr. Zubair Ahmad who was coming from Anantnag to Srinagar in his own maruti bearing No.JK04/4526 driven by him at a normal speed on the correct side of the road, was hit by bus No:1304/JKF, as a result of which the deceased received fatal injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.2, consequently on the next day, the deceased succumbed to the injuries en-route hospital? (OPP). 2. Whether the accident has taken place as a consequence of contributory negligence between the maruti driver and the bus driver involved in the accident, as such the petition merits dismissal? (OPR/Insurance Co.) 3. (OPP). 2. Whether the accident has taken place as a consequence of contributory negligence between the maruti driver and the bus driver involved in the accident, as such the petition merits dismissal? (OPR/Insurance Co.) 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, as such the respondent/ insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability? (OPR/Insurance Co.) 4. In case of the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? (OPP) 5. Relief. 7. Claimants examined, Miss Sageera, Ms. Arooja, Bilal Ahmad Lone, Shabir Ahmad, G. A.Kamili, Muzaffar Jan Pattoo, Ishfaq Ahmad, Ahmad Misger, Mohammad Younis Bhat and widow of the deceased, namely, Asmat Wahid Mrs.Rifat, in support of the claim petition. 8. Respondents including insurer have not examined any witness. 9. As discussed above, there is no dispute viz-a-viz issue Nos.1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not questioned the findings returned by the learned Tribunal viz-a-viz the said issues. 10. Admittedly, the claimants-respondents 1 to 5 have pleaded and proved that age of the deceased was 44 years. Shabir Ahmad, Chief Accounts Officer SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, and G. A. Kamli, Administrative Officer SKIMS Hospital Bemina, have proved the last pay certificate--EXPW1. Thus, claimants have proved that gross salary of the deceased was Rs.21,796/- at that particular point of time. Tribunal after deducting one third out of pay/ salary rightly held that the claimants have lost two third of the pay. 11. There is ample evidence on the file that deceased was practicing at Al-Shafa Clinic Anantnag, Modern Nursing Home, Rotenda Hugea Clinic, Galaxy Diagnostic Centre Neelam Chowk and Al-Sabah Diagnostic Centre, Court Road, Srinagar. PWs 6, 7, 8 and 9, namely, Muzaffar Jan Patoo, Ishfaq Ahmad, Ahmad Misger and Mohammad Younis Bhat, have stated that deceased was practicing as Radiologist and Sonographist at their clinics (supra) and was earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.10,000/-, Rs. 20000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 15000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7000/- monthly. 12. It is apt to mention herein that evidence of the claimants has remained unrebutted. Thus there is no rebuttal. The tribunal after making deductions under various heads held that net earning out of the private practice of the deceased was at the best Rs.31,000/-. 20000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 15000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7000/- monthly. 12. It is apt to mention herein that evidence of the claimants has remained unrebutted. Thus there is no rebuttal. The tribunal after making deductions under various heads held that net earning out of the private practice of the deceased was at the best Rs.31,000/-. The learned Tribunal after making one third deductions on account of personal expenses of the deceased rightly held that claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.20,666/- per month. 13. Admittedly, the deceased was 45 years of age and as per the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier 15 was applicable but keeping in view the amount of multiplicand and the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgment delivered in case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan, AIR 2002 SC 2607 , the multiplier 13 came to be rightly applied. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that family pension is to be deducted. The argument is misconceived for the simple reason that if the unfortunate accident would not have cut short the life of the deceased, his pay had to increase gradually and his pay would have gone up and there would have been increase in the income out of the private practice also. My this view is fortified by apex court judgments reported as 2008 AIR SCW 143 and 2008 AIR SCW 2393. The argument is accordingly turned down. Cross Appeal No.104/2008: 15. As held above, tribunal has rightly made assessment and awarded the just compensation. 16. Learned Presiding Officer has rightly held that claimants are entitled to the compensation in equal shares. Only the share/ amount payable to the son and daughter of the deceased shall remain in fixed deposit for a period of five years and rest payable to other claimants be released through payee account cheques under rules. Son and daughter are at liberty to withdraw any portion out of the deposited amount before the time frame for his/ her urgent legitimate need after seeking permission from the tribunal and it is for the tribunal to grant or refuse the permission. Court fees is the first charge. Appeal/ cross appeal, accordingly, dismissed.