Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—This First Appeal is at the instance of claimants in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against judgment and award dated 18th October 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Navsari in MACP No. 390 of 1990 by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of petition till realisation 2. There is no dispute that due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred where the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died. It appears that the deceased was a businessman and at the time of death, he was aged about 56 years. It further appears from the evidence given by the Chartered Accountant who used to file the Income Tax Returns on behalf of the deceased that the deceased was earning average income of Rs. 22,000/- per annum from various partnership firms for the last 3 assessment years. It further appears that he was also receiving average income of Rs. 18,000/- from M/s. Sompura Transport according to the last three Assessment Years. In the said firm there were six partners and deceased had 1/6th share in the said firm. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that his annual income from the Sompura Transport should be treated to be Rs. 3000/- per annum, and therefore, the total income of the deceased should be teated as Rs. 22,000/- + Rs. 3000/- = Rs. 25,000/- per annum. After arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal was of the view that for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the future prospective income of the business should also be taken note of, and accordingly, the Tribunal added Rs. 12,500/- to the annual income of Rs. 25,000/- and held that the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 37,500/-. The Tribunal was of the further view that 1/3rd should be deducted therefrom towards his personal expenses and thus, held that the total income of the deceased would be Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to apply a multiplier of 9 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,25,0000/- and in addition to the said amount, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation of the dead-body and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. 25,000/- per annum. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to apply a multiplier of 9 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,25,0000/- and in addition to the said amount, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation of the dead-body and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,52,000/-. 3. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended before me that the Tribunal below should have applied a multiplier of 13 for the purpose of calculation of dependency loss. 5. In my opinion, the Tribunal, while calculating the future prospective income having added half of the existing annual income to the annual income, although the victim was aged 56 years, the application of multiplier of 9 was more than adequate. 6. I further find that in addition to the said amount, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and consortium, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation of the dead-body and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, there is no justification to enhance the amount after taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has added 50% of the existing annual income towards the future prospective income in the case of a victim who was aged 56 years. 7. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance, and is, consequently, dismissed. In the fact and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.