Hon'ble RATHOD, J.—Heard learned Advocate Ms. Kiran Pandey for appellant Corporation and learned Advocate Mr. MA Parekh for respondents original claimants. 2. By filing this appeal, appellant corporation has challenged award made by claims tribunal, Bhavnagar in MACP No. 174 of 1983 decided on 30th September, 1988. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Pandey for appellant has vehemently raised contention that way in which claims tribunal has examined matter and decided question of negligence is contrary to law and record. She submitted that claims tribunal has committed an error in not believing evidence of driver Exh. 65 by considering him as interested person. She submitted that claims tribunal has examined matter as if he has predetermined matter. She also raised contention that quantum of compensation awarded by claims tribunal is on higher side. She also raised contention that contentions raised by corporation in its written statement filed before claims tribunal have not been considered by claims tribunal. She also submitted that even contributory negligence of deceased is also not at all considered by claims tribunal. She also submitted that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased and for negligence of driver, there was no evidence available on record and, therefore, claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding claim petition. She submitted that quantum is also fixed contrary to law and same is on higher side and, therefore, interference of this court is necessary. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Parekh for respondents claimants has supported award on ground that claims tribunal has rightly examined mater and has properly appreciated evidence on record and has rightly decided question of negligence. He also submitted that quantum is also properly considered by claims tribunal relying upon evidence of claimant and evidence of Sanat Bhatt at Exh.75. He submitted that multiplier of 12 applied by claims tribunal is on lower side looking to age of deceased, 45 years. In short, his submission is that claims tribunal has decided claim petition properly and no error is committed by claims tribunal which would call for interference of this court. In respect of cross objection, he submitted that once, award is found to be correct by this court, then, cross objection may be accordingly disposed of. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. In respect of cross objection, he submitted that once, award is found to be correct by this court, then, cross objection may be accordingly disposed of. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. Claim petition arising before claims tribunal because of death of Manoharsinh Prabhatsinh Chudasama in motor accident which took place on 7.7.83 at 2.00 p.m. Night on Ahmedabad-Bhavnagar Road on Udli river bridge Nala NO. 1184. Vehicle involved in accident namely ST Bus No. GRG 8375 was driven by opponent no.1 owned by opponent no.2. It was case of claimants before claims tribunal that deceased was going on road and he was walking on left side of road and ST Bus was driven in rash and negligent manner and that has resulted in accident. Deceased was aged 45 years and was working in accounts department of GSRTC and he was also having agricultural lands and was also working in regional films and therefore, amount of Rs.9,00,000.00 was claimed by claimants before claims tribunal as compensation from respondents. Claimant NO.3 is widow of deceased and claimant no.1 and 2 are minor children of deceased. 6. Written statement was filed by opponents before claims tribunal at Exh. 11 wherein allegations regarding rash and negligent driving have been denied and quantum of compensation claimed and reasons thereof are also challenged. Thereafter, claims tribunal framed issues at Exh. 20 as considered in para 4 of award and awarded Rs.2,97,000.00 in favour of claimants with nine per cent interest per annum. 7. Claims tribunal has considered question of negligence on basis of fact that other side has not disputed accident and driver of bus examined at Exh. 65 has also admitted factum of accident and this accident is also admitted by corporation in its written statement and death of deceased in said accident has also not been disputed and death is also corroborated by deposition of Dr. Bhanushankar Kantibhai at Exh. 45. This witness was Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Bhavnagar who has performed PM of deceased. Claims Tribunal has considered evidence of driver at Exh. 65 and other relevant records, FIR and panchanama of accident. Evidence of driver was considered but considering him interested person, claims tribunal considered that normally such driver would always try to avoid criminal liability of accident. This witness was Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Bhavnagar who has performed PM of deceased. Claims Tribunal has considered evidence of driver at Exh. 65 and other relevant records, FIR and panchanama of accident. Evidence of driver was considered but considering him interested person, claims tribunal considered that normally such driver would always try to avoid criminal liability of accident. Defence which was raised by corporation was that deceased was having absent mind/wavering mind and also worried of his health and a confused person may wanted to commit suicide and, therefore, accident occurred. In that regard, claims tribunal considered that no reason shown why deceased wanted to commit suicide and therefore, claims tribunal disbelieved such defence for want of evidence. Driver has not given any explanation why he dashed with deceased when he was pedestrian walking on correct side of road. It was not a case of driver of ST Corporation that deceased was walking on middle of road. As per evidence of driver at Exh. 65, bus has reached to Bhavnagar at about 1.00 a.m. Mid night and started journey for going to Ahmedabad at about 1.10 minutes night where light was deem and after leaving Bhavnagar, within thirty minutes, accident occurred. Incident occurred at Nala which was having turn like S, therefore, while entering into said Nala, bus has to take turn on right side and thereafter, it has to be on left side. This Nala was having length of about 40 to 50 ft. There was no other vehicle coming from opposite direction. At that time, one person coming from right side near to bus. At that time, this accident has taken place within 2 or 3 second and he applied brake immediately but deceased was run over by ST Bus. It was admited by driver in his cross examination that till deceased has been dashed by ST Bus, he was not able to see deceased. Width of road was 14 ft. These facts have not been given by driver in his statement before police. He also admitted in statement before police that it was not mentioned by him that person who died was in drunken condition. Police case was lodged against present driver. Person who died was Chief Accountant in ST Corporation at Bhavnagar. In ST Bus, Chandrakant, bus conductor was examined in criminal case. In view of this evidence Exh. He also admitted in statement before police that it was not mentioned by him that person who died was in drunken condition. Police case was lodged against present driver. Person who died was Chief Accountant in ST Corporation at Bhavnagar. In ST Bus, Chandrakant, bus conductor was examined in criminal case. In view of this evidence Exh. 65 of driver, when accident occurred, sufficient care has not been taken by driver and accident occurred at mid night and driver was coming from Una to Bhavnagar and then immediately started journey from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad, so, due to this reason, not applied brake immediately to save deceased and, therefore, claims tribunal has rightly come to conclusion looking to evidence on driver that driver was interested person and therefore, naturally would not disclose true and correct facts of accident before court. On the basis of this evidence and considering evidence of claimants, claims tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of ST Bus. Such conclusion cannot be considered to be erroneous and/or contrary to evidence on record and, therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Pandey in that regard cannot be accepted and same are, therefore, rejected. 8. In respect of quantum, claims tribunal has decided matter on basis of evidence on record. Before claims tribunal, while deciding issue no.4, claims tribunal has considered monthly pay slip Exh. 24 produced on record which was showing salary of Rs.1386.50 and for pvoving income, witness Sanat Bhatt was examined at Exh. 75 from Administration Department and salary of deceased was increased to Rs.1586 according to new pay scale and on that basis, applying future prospects, income of deceased, total salary comes to Rs.2000.00 p.m. Then, claims tribunal deducted Rs.500.00 therefrom towards personal expenses of deceased and thereafter, considering school certificate Exh.35 which was showing birth date 22.4.37, claims tribunal applied multiplier of 12 and accordingly awarded Rs.2,16,000.00 towards loss of dependency benefits. Then, claims tribunal considered that for a further period of three years, income of deceased including pension and other job or work which he would have done can be accepted to be Rs.1500.00 and deducting Rs.500.00 therefrom towards his personal expenses, Rs.1000/- can be said to be dependency and annual dependency would be Rs.12000.00 and loss of income for three years after retirement would come to Rs.36,000.00. From perusal of evidence on record as considered by claims tribunal, it appears that claims tribunal has considered agricultural work carried out by deceased and also considered that he was working in film industry and having income from that field and earning from agricultural land 120 vighas and thereafter, claims tribunal awarded Rs.2,16,000.00 for loss of income from pay for 12 years; Rs.36000.00 for loss of income for further three years; Rs.18000.00 for loss of agricultural income; Rs.15000.00 for loss of PF contributions; Rs.10,000.00 for loss of expectation of life; Rs.2000.00 for funeral expenses and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,97,000.00 to claimants with 9 per cent interest from date of claim petition till realization which according to my opinion, is quite just, reasonable and proper compensation awarded by claims tribunal. Learned advocate Ms. Pandey also raised contention about rate of interest and submitted that instead of 9 per cent, claims tribunal ought to have awarded interest at rate of 6 per cent. According to my opinion, it is purely discretionary power of claims tribunal to award rate of interest. Looking to condition prevailing at relevant time when accident occurred, according to my opinion, award of interest at rate of 9 per cent per annum cannot be considered to be on higher side and for that, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not committed any error which would require interference of this court. After all, this court has to consider whether compensation awarded by claims tribunal as a whole is just, proper and reasonable compensation or not as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or not. According to my opinion, deceased was working as Chief Accountant in ST Corporation and he lost his life at the age of 46 years who was having more years of service and income from service over and above income from agricultural work from agricultural land 120 vighas owned by him and, therefore, amount awarded by claims tribunal as compensation to claimants as a whole cannot be considered to be unreasonable, unjust and on higher side and, therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Pandey in that regard cannot be accepted as claims tribunal has not committed any error in making award. Therefore, there is no substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Pandey in that regard cannot be accepted as claims tribunal has not committed any error in making award. Therefore, there is no substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Today, this court has dismissed first appeal while holding that the amount of compensation awarded by claims tribunal is just, reasonable and proper and, therefore, cross objection filed by claimant is also dismissed with no order as to costs.