Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Aftersaid two appeals; one by the Corporation for reducing the award amount/setting aside the award and another by the claimants for enhancement of award amount have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 30.5.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal, in claim case No. 206/06. 2. Since both the appeals arise and are being filed against the single award dated 30.5.2007, hence, the same are decided by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.5.2006 at about 8-8.30 p.m. when the deceased Khem Singh whiled driving motor cycle reached near Sukhawali on Uchhain Road, suddenly a bus No. RJ 05P 0961 coming rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle resulting in death of Khem Singh. 4. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimant appellant before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Reply was filed. Issues were framed and evidences were submitted by the parties. After hearing the parties and scrutinizing the evidences, learned Tribunal had passed the aforesaid award. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 30.5.2007, these civil misc. appeals have been preferred as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Corporation because there was ample evidence on record showing that the deceased himself was negligent. 6. He has further contended that whole deciding issue No. 2 excessive amount was awarded as compensation. As also looking to the age of deceased multiplier of 10 was to be used. Hence, prayed that award multiplier of 10 was to be used. Hence, prayed that award amount be reduced or the award be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. JP Gupta appearing for the claimants has contended that the deceased was 49 years old Patwari in the Revenue Department and was getting salary Rs. 13,423/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed the income of Rs. 10,500/- per month. Multiplier of 13 was used instead of 15. Hence, prayed that award amount be enhanced. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective and gone through the award. 9. 13,423/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed the income of Rs. 10,500/- per month. Multiplier of 13 was used instead of 15. Hence, prayed that award amount be enhanced. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective and gone through the award. 9. A bare perusal of award shows that the FIR has a mention of bus number and it was also shown that the bus was driven rash and negligently. The contention of the Corporation that the motor cycle hit the bus from the back side was also not believed by the learned Tribunal as the mechanical survey of the bus shows that the bumper of front side was having a dent and sign of abrasion were also found on the front side of the bus. The Police has also filed challan against the driver of the Corporation. 10. The age of deceased was assumed as 49 years and according to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 13 was applied. 11. According to Ex. 12, the salary certificate, the deceased was getting Rs. 10,339/- after deduction. 12. Accordingly, in view of discussion made above, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award after due appreciation of facts and evidence which does not call for any interference by this Court whether to enhance or reduce the award. 13. Consequently, both the civil misc. appeals fails and same are hereby dismissed and the award dated 30.5.2007 stands confirmed.