Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—As in both the appeals, common facts and common questions arise, they are being considered by this common order. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 31.12.1997 when the deceased Mr. Hasmukhbhai was coming with Mr. Urvish, pillion rider, on Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. GJ-5-J-15 at about 9.45 p.m., at that time, the S.T. Bus in question came from the front, on the wrong side, and dashed with the motor cycle, as a result thereof the deceased M/s. Hasmukhbhai and Urvish were thrown at a distant place and they sustained injuries. Ultimately, they succumbed to the injuries. The claim petitions were filed for recovery and compensation by the dependent family members of the deceased Mr. Hasmukhbhai and the parents of Mr. Urvish for Rs. 15 lac and Rs. 2 lac respectively being MACP No. 98 of 1998 and No. 99 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, ultimately, passed the judgement and award dated 13.3.2009, wherein Rs. 8,28,400/- with interest has been awarded as compensation in MACP No. 98 of 1998 and Rs. 1,25,000/- has been awarded in MACP No. 99/1998 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Chauhan appearing with Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dharmesh Mahale for Mr. Amit V. Thakkar, learned Counsel for the original claimants appearing in First Appeal No. 2051 of 2010. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised the first contention that the rash and negligent driving by the deceased was not at all considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that there is an error committed by the Tribunal. 5. The examination of the aforesaid contention shows that as per the evidence on record, one rickshaw on the bridge was in stagnant condition, therefore, the driver of ST Bus had to over take the rickshaw and when over take was applied, the motor cycle came from the front side and the accident occurred. The evidence of independent witness Mr. Vinod Pathak shows that the motor cycle was being driven in a very slow speed and the driver of the bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence of independent witness Mr. Vinod Pathak shows that the motor cycle was being driven in a very slow speed and the driver of the bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner. It was also come on record that there was a slope over the road and even after the driver applied the brake the bus stopped at about 30 to 40 feet from the site of the accident. Two aspects are pertinent; one is that when vehicle was driven by over taking the rickshaw the bus went on the wrong side i.e. right side of the road, though there was no clear road available; and the second was that the speed was such an excessive speed that the bus stopped about 30 to 40 ft away. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the driver of the ST Bus could be said as negligent and liable for the accident and the fault could not have been found of the driver of the motor cycle, who was deceased. 6. Under these circumstances, if the Tribunal has not attributed any contributory negligence to the driver of the motor cycle, such approach could not be said as erroneous. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that on the aspects of quantum also the error has been committed by the Tribunal. 8. The examination of the said contention shows that the deceased was serving with the Insurance Company and salary slip was produced. The age of the retirement of the deceased has also been considered by the Tribunal and after taking into consideration the last salary and the prospective income, for compensation income is assessed at Rs. 7,200/- p.m. Thereafter, 1/3rd amount is deducted for personal expenses and 2/3rd is considered for the purpose of compensation. As the deceased was aged 37 years, taking into consideration the age of retirement, the multiplier of 14 is applied. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that any error has been committed by the Tribunal in awarding the quantum of the compensation. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation for the deceased Urvish is concerned, we find that the calculation made by the Tribunal is also reasonable and the same cannot be said to be erroneous. 10. In view of the above, the appeals are meritless. Therefore, dismissed.