JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal from the judgment and award dated 3.3.1997 in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.93/1994 decided by learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Buldana (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the claimants were awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.1,59,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the balance sum, till its realization; with further direction for distribution to claimants in proportionate shares, as to full payment of court fees, investment in Bank etc.. 2. Facts in brief are that : On 13.5.1994 deceased - Sheshrao was going on bicycle by Deolgaonraja to Jalna Road. After he had proceeded for a distance of about a kilometer, the State Transport Bus bearing Registration No.MH-31-8481 came from opposite direction in a break-neck speed and knocked him down. Sheshrao sustained injuries. He was shifted to the Hospital; but Doctor, on examining, him found him dead. Upon filing an MACP, interim relief of compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Claim was vociferously opposed on the ground that the Driver was not made a party to the Claim Petition. On merits, it was contended that the Driver of the Bus was not driving rashly and negligently; but the deceased himself was negligent and, therefore, his heirs are not entitled for compensation. It was further opposed on the ground that the claim demanded is ex-orbitant and as such, the same be reduced on the ground of contributory negligence of cyclist. 4. Learned Member of the Tribunal framed issues according to pleadings and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of S.T. Bus bearing No.MH-31-8481 by its Driver and as a result deceased Sheshrao met his untimely death. Thus, learned Member proceeded to award compensation, as stated supra. 5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that the accident had occurred while the bus was going from Jalna to Deulgaonraja. Deceased-Sheshrao was going towards Jalna side and was on wrong side of the road. It is further contended that there was no evidence to indicate that Bus was driven at break-neck speed, that too rashly or negligently. Deceased-cyclist was on a slope on wrong side of the road and he had dashed against a stationary Bus. Deceased-Sheshrao was going towards Jalna side and was on wrong side of the road. It is further contended that there was no evidence to indicate that Bus was driven at break-neck speed, that too rashly or negligently. Deceased-cyclist was on a slope on wrong side of the road and he had dashed against a stationary Bus. Further, according to learned counsel for appellant, the Driver was a necessary party and, in his absence, the claim ought to have been dismissed. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded, it is contended that the compensation award was exorbitant or excessive without basis of evidence. 6. I have heard submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; so also perused the evidence recorded and the impugned judgment and award. 7. The submission that Bus was stationary is made in the light of interested words of Driver Vinayak Patil. The evidence of Driver is not corroborated at all. Had the cyclist gave dash to a stationary Bus there would have been resultant bend or mark on steel rod of the Bus or cyclist would have gone inside/under the Bus by force/dash by cyclist on a stationary Bus. No such observation could be found in Panchnama to believe the Driver of the, Bus. On the other hand, had the Bus remained stationary, the cyclist would not have gone under the front side left wheel of the Bus, as noted in the Panchnama. The words of the Bus Driver are self-serving and interested trying to save his own skin and could not be believed. There is reason to believe that the Bus Driver may be suppressing the truth from the Tribunal. Panchnama (Exh.27) also indicated that the road was 13' wide without obstacle and brakes were seen to have been applied at least from a distance of 21' indicative of high speed of the Bus. The Bus Driver ultimately could not control enough to avoid impact with the cyclist coming from the opposite side of the road. Thus, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus. The cyclist cannot be attributed with negligence under the above circumstances. A Bus Driver driving a Bus on a highway is expected to take precaution like any ordinary and prudent person to ensure safety of road users, such as cyclist, coming from opposite direction. Thus, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus. The cyclist cannot be attributed with negligence under the above circumstances. A Bus Driver driving a Bus on a highway is expected to take precaution like any ordinary and prudent person to ensure safety of road users, such as cyclist, coming from opposite direction. Had the Driver controlled the speed within reasonable limits, he could have swerved the Bus to the extreme left to avoid knocking down the cyclist. Therefore, the Bus Driver was rightly held rash and negligent while driving the Bus. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant in this regard, therefore, is liable to be rejected. 8. The next contention is that the Driver of the Bus was a necessary party. The Driver was examined as witness and his deposition has been appreciated. His presence before the Tribunal as witness was procured. Hence, at this stage, in the facts and circumstances, no grievance can be made that Driver was not party to the proceedings. No such application was moved to implead him as party to the proceeding. Hence, this contention is also without force as employer of the Driver is having vicarious liability for accident was impleaded. 9. Finally; learned counsel for the appellant contended that quantum of compensation awarded is excessive or exorbitant. It appears in evidence of widow of the deceased Sheshrao that her husband was working as a stone-cutter and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Sheshrao was aged about 35 years old at the time of the fatal accident and was maintaining family of seven members including himself. Learned Member of the Tribunal had considered the monthly income of Rs. 1,000/- and annual loss of dependency as Rs.12,000/- and applied multiplier of "12" to compute just compensation payable while computing it in the sum of Rs.1,44,000 and giving loss of consortium of Rs.15,000 to widow of deceased. Thus, sum of Rs.1,59,000 awarded (inclusive of "no fault liability" received in the sum of Rs.25,000/-), cannot be considered as excessive considering the age of the deceased and his dependents. Thus, sum of Rs.1,59,000 awarded (inclusive of "no fault liability" received in the sum of Rs.25,000/-), cannot be considered as excessive considering the age of the deceased and his dependents. Notional income (In present period at least Rs.15,000 per annum) need to be considered as also bearing in mind the imponderables, life expectancy; future earnings and contributions which decease could have made, future prospects of his better employment or income etc, the compensation awarded cannot, in the facts and circumstances, be labelled as exorbitant; unjust or excessive. The Tribunal, was duty-bound and was entitled to award just compensation irrespective of claim or plea in that behalf, as observed in para No.25 of the judgment in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 2009 SC 3056 : [2010(1) ALL MR 441 (S.C.)]). 10. In sequel to the discussion made herein-above, therefore, appeal being sans merit, deserve dismissal, which I direct. Appeal dismissed.