RAFIQ, J.—Non-claimants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by award dated 19.05.2005 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, in MAC Case No.12/2003, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,37,440/- to claimants in a death case. 2. Briefly stated facts of case are that on 17.01.2003 offending bus of appellant Corporation bearing No.RJ-34-O-0285, which was being driven by Khubi Ram, was coming from Kela Devi and hit Jeep No.RJ-25-C-0853 from behind the back, as a result of which Gopal, who was travelling in the jeep, died. Claimants are his dependents. 3. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that compensation awarded to claimants is excessive, unjust and illegal inasmuch learned Tribunal has failed to consider that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of appellant's bus driver. At the most it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. The accident took place due to negligence of driver of jeep. 4. Learned counsel further argued that multiplier of 17 should have been applied by learned Tribunal instead of 18, while calculating compensation because now in judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), for a person of 30 years of age, multiplier of 17 has been held applicable. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and impugned award be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that award of learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for by this court in the appeal. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. On hearing learned counsel for appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents and perusing material on record, I am of the view that appeal on that ground needs not be entertained because there are in this case four claimants and learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. If judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla verma, supra, is applied in its entirety then that judgment also requires that where there are four claimants, deduction of 1/4th should be made for own expenses of deceased. 7. Learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that negligence of driver of jeep is not proved. 7. Learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that negligence of driver of jeep is not proved. On the contrary, it is proved that accident took place on account of negligence on the part of driver of offending bus as he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. AW-4 Prakash and AW-5 Hemraj have clearly stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of offending bus. The driver of the jeep stationed it on one side of the road and he went to answer the natural call. The offending bus came in a very high speed and hit the jeep from back side. Had the bus driver driven it at a moderate speed, it was not possible that bus would have hit the jeep from back side. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the offending bus responsible for the accident. It cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. The award of learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference of this court. 8. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.