JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant - original opponent No. 2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984, by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,45,750/- towards compensation to the claimants and holding the driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60%. 2. That in a vehicular accident between ST Bus and Jeep Car which took place on 12th February, 1984, one Shankarlal Soni died and therefore, the original claimants being his heirs preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 74 of 1984 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Palanpur claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That on appreciation of evidence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driver of the ST Bus negligent to the extent of 40% and driver of the Jeep Car negligent to the extent of 60% and on appreciation of evidence, considering the income of the deceased at the relevant time at the rate of Rs. 900 per month and deducting ?rd amount for his personal expenditure, awarded future economic loss considering net loss of Rs. 600 and applying multiplier of 20, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,45,750/- . Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Award, the appellant - original opponent No. 3 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Ms. Archana Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - GSRTC has submitted that the appellant is not questioning the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as negligence is concerned. It is submitted that, however, the appellant is challenging the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as quantum is concerned. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding future economic loss applying multiplier of 20. It is submitted that, however, the appellant is challenging the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as quantum is concerned. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding future economic loss applying multiplier of 20. It is submitted that even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 : 2009 (2) TAC 677, at the most multiplier of 18 could have been applied by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. Anand L. Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the surviving claimants as it is reported that except widow - respondent No. 3 herein - Bhagwatiben Shankarlal Soni all other claimants have expired. It is submitted that even if it is considered that the learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded future economic loss applying multiplier of 20 in that case also considering the fact that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the heads of Loss of Estate and Consortium, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6. It is true that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss applying multiplier of 20, however, it is to be noted that it was a fatal case and therefore, the claimants were entitled to Rs. 15,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate and Rs. 15,000/- under the head of Consortium, which have not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is also required to be noted that the impugned judgment and award has been challenged only by the appellant herein and the owner and Insurance Company of the Jeep Car, who is held to be negligent to the extent of 60% have not preferred First Appeal challenging the judgment and award in question. Considering the aforesaid aspects and overall facts of the case when, though the claimants are entitled to Rs. Considering the aforesaid aspects and overall facts of the case when, though the claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000 under the heads of Loss of Estate and Consortium, the same have not been awarded by the learned Tribunal, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is not interfered with. If the excess amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards future economic loss applying multiplier of more than 18 is adjusted against the amount to be paid under the heads of loss of estate and consortium, the amount of compensation would come to the same figure and therefore, this Court does not interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present first appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.