Judgment Ravi R.Tripathi, J.—Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GSRTC”) is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7th January, 1985 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary, Nadiad, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 70,500/- as compensation with 6% interest from the date of the application till payment with proportionate costs. The First Appeal is filed claiming the amount to be excessive and the claim in the First Appeal is restricted to Rs. 44,000/-. 2. Learned Advocate Ms. Archana N. Patel for learned Advocate Mr. Hardik C. Rawal for the appellant GSRTC submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the amount of Rs. 70,500/-. Learned Advocate for the appellant GSRTC contended that the deceased was 54 years of age and the Tribunal, assessing the loss of dependency benefit at Rs. 5000/-, applied multiplier of 12 years and awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of dependency benefit. The Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 5000/- for shortening of life and Rs. 500/- towards funeral charges. The Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 5000/-for pain, shock and suffering. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased survived for three hours after the accident and therefore, the amount awarded under head “pain, shock and suffering” is not called for and in case the award was required to be made under that head, the same ought to be of a reasonable amount. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 269 of 1983 are set out in Paragraph-2 which reads as under: “2. The facts leading to this application briefly stated are that on 27.3.83, deceased Somabhai Fulabhai was going from Torna to Kapadwanj in S.T.Bus and when he got down at Kapadwanj and was going out of the S.T.stand he was knocked down by an S.T. Bus No. G.T.E. 5361. That the deceased was removed to Kapadwanj Dispensary where he died at 11.00 a.m. The claimants are the heirs of the deceased. That the deceased was removed to Kapadwanj Dispensary where he died at 11.00 a.m. The claimants are the heirs of the deceased. It is their case that the deceased received injury as due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus No. G.T.E. 5361.” The claim of the claimants is also set out in the said Paragraph by the Tribunal which reads as under: “The contended that the deceased doing agricultural work and in spare time he was serving in Fire Cracker Factory at Kapadwanj and was earning Rs. 25/- per day and the total income of the deceased from both these sources was Rs. 1,11,000/- per year. They further contended that the deceased survived about 3 hours after the incident and he was shouting and so they are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering suffered by the deceased. They also claimed Rs. 5000/- as loss of expectation of life. They also contended that the deceased while he was alive in the hospital, the claimant Nos. 1 and 3 received mental shock and so they are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for the same. They therefore, claimed Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation from the opponent Nos. 1 and 2.” 4. The Tribunal, after taking note of the contentions raised by the opponent no.2 GSRTC in its written statement at exh.1 4, framed the following issues. “1. Whether is it proved that the driver of the vehicle S.T. Bus No. G.T.E. 5361 was driving the said vehicle rashly or negligently and caused the death of Somabhai Fulabhai ? “ The same was answered in the affirmative. The Tribunal was pleased to frame another issue which reads as under: “2. What amount of compensation if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? The same was answered in the affirmative awarding an amount of Rs. 70500/- and stating that the opponents are liable to pay the same. 5. I have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, more particularly the quantum part which is discussed elaborately in Para-9 which reads as under: “9. In the instant case, the injured has died. The claimant No. 2 has been examined at Exhibit 21. He has stated that his father was cultivating 4 bighas of his own land and 6 bighas of land jointly with his uncle and he was earning about Rs. In the instant case, the injured has died. The claimant No. 2 has been examined at Exhibit 21. He has stated that his father was cultivating 4 bighas of his own land and 6 bighas of land jointly with his uncle and he was earning about Rs. 20,000/- from agriculture and after deducting the expenses, the net income from agriculture was Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 13,000/-. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that his father cultivating 4 bighas of land of his own and 6 bighas of land of joint ownership of himself and his brother. The documentary evidence produced on record at Exhibits 18, 19 and 27 shows that all the lands were of joint family consisting father the claimant no. 2 and his uncle. The claimant No. 2 in his further deposition has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the income from agriculture but he has stated so as his father was telling him about it. The evidence of the claimant shows that his father was earning about Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- from agriculture as net income per annum, cannot be said to be satisfactory. He has not led any evidence to show that could be the net income from the produce of 10 bighas of land of his village. In the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the net income of the deceased from agriculture and from the service in factory was about Rs. 11,000/- per annum. This shows that the say of the claimant No. 2 that his father was earning about Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- from agriculture is far fetched and is an over estimate. The claimants have examined one Ramanbhai Bhikhabhai at Exhibit 23. He is running a cracker factory at Kapadwanj. According to the said witness, he was paying the time he was working in his factory. In his cross-examination, he stated that his factory was working of 8 to 9 months in a year. He further stated in his cross-examination the account books, but he does not maintain attendance register of the employees in the factory. He states that he maintains kutcha diary but he has not brought the same. He also stated that he was paying the employees according to the working day in the month. He further stated in his cross-examination the account books, but he does not maintain attendance register of the employees in the factory. He states that he maintains kutcha diary but he has not brought the same. He also stated that he was paying the employees according to the working day in the month. He states that he had diary to show that the deceased was paid Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- day, but he has destroyed the same. The incident has happened in the month of March, 1983 and so the say of this witness that he destroyed the diary within a short period cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the deceased was working in the factory of this man on daily wages and he was paying Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per day, then also he could not be working for all the days in a month. There is no evidence as to how many days in a month he was working in the factory of Ramanbhai Bhikhabhai. In my opinion, the claimants have not produced the best evidence to ascertain the income of the deceased from his working in the cracker factory. Ordinarily a labourer is paid between Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- per day for such work and if we take that the deceased was working for at least 24 days in a month, his income from the factory wages would be about Rs. 360/- per month and multiplying the same with the working days for eight month, it would come to Rs. 2880/-. The claimants have contended in the claim petition that the deceased was earning net income of Rs. 11,000/- from the agriculture and from his wages in the factory. If we deduct Rs. 2880/- from this, the agricultural income would come to Rs. 8120/-. I therefore, assess the total agricultural income of the deceased from the joint family land at Rs. 8120/-. Out of this amount of Rs. 8120/-, he would be paying half amount to the wife of his brother which would be Rs. 4060/-. It was urged by Shri L.J. Mehta, learned Advocate for the applicants that the deceased was cultivating the portion of the land of his brother’s wife on share basis and he was getting 1/3rd from the said share of his brother’s wife. 8120/-, he would be paying half amount to the wife of his brother which would be Rs. 4060/-. It was urged by Shri L.J. Mehta, learned Advocate for the applicants that the deceased was cultivating the portion of the land of his brother’s wife on share basis and he was getting 1/3rd from the said share of his brother’s wife. The property is a joint family property and so long as it is not divided between the two families, it remains joint and the say of Mr. Mehta that the deceased was getting 1/3rd share from the income of agricultural land of his brother’s wife cannot be accepted. I therefore, put the agricultural income of the deceased at Rs. 4060/- per annum. I have stated about that the deceased was earning Rs. 2880/- as wages from the cracker factory. Thus the total income of the deceased from both the sources will come to Rs. 6940/-. There were members in the family of the deceased and so the annual expenditure of the deceased after himself can be placed at Rs. 1940/- and he would be contributing Rs. 5000/- per annum towards the maintenance of the claimants. Thus the dependency allowance of the claimants is placed at Rs. 5000/- per annum.” 6. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error and has determined a just amount of compensation. None of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant is found worth accepting and hence the same are not accepted. The Appeal as found without any substance, is dismissed.