Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ.—These two appeals were heard together as these appeals arise out of two applications for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act arising out of same accident. 2. So far as First Appeal No. 22 of 2004 is concerned, it appears that the victim was aged 40 years serving in PWD Department of the Government of Gujarat having salary of Rs. 4425/a month. The date of accident is 12th July, 1996. In the claim application, the claimants, who are widow and four children of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs. 10 lac. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,44,000/. Being dissatisfied, the owner of one of the offending vehicles involved with the accident has come up with this appeal, thereby praying for reduction of Rs. 4 lac. 3. So far as First Appeal No. 23 of 2005 is concerned, the victim was a 13 year’s old girl and was a student. Her parents claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lac and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,08,000/as just amount of compensation. In the First Appeal No. 23 of 2005, the owner of the offending vehicle has prayed for reduction of Rs. 1,08,000/from the said amount. 4. It appears that on 12th July, 1996, while a bus owned by S.T. Corporation was standing on a bus stop, another bus belonging to the appellant came from behind, stopped at the distance of 10 feet away from the stationary bus of the State Transport. After the passengers entered into the rear side of the gate, the conductor of the said bus rang a bell for starting. The driver of the said bus immediately started the bus and while trying to overtake the standing bus of State Transport, dashed with the rear portion of the standing bus resulting in death of the two persons, who were still hanging at the doorstep of the rearside of the bus. 5. Mr. Bhatia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant streneously contended before me that the learned Tribunal below while finding that the bus owned by the appellant was negligent, did not take into consideration the materials on record and as such, that finding should be set aside. According to Mr. 5. Mr. Bhatia, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant streneously contended before me that the learned Tribunal below while finding that the bus owned by the appellant was negligent, did not take into consideration the materials on record and as such, that finding should be set aside. According to Mr. Bhatia, the standing bus ahead of the bus owned by his client really stood at the middle of the road and thus, the said bus should also be held to be responsible for the accident. 6. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the claimant and the other bus owner S.T. Corporation opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Bhatia and submitted that the Tribunal below on the correct appreciation of evidence having arrived at the conclusion that the driver and conductor of the bus owned by the appellant were negligent, I should not interfere with such finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. 7. After going through the materials on record, I find that it has been well established from the evidence on record that the bus owned by the appellant came from behind, some passengers came inside the bus, who were standing at the bus stop, but before they could enter into the bus, at the dictation of the conductor, the bus driver started the bus and immediately proceeded to overtake the stationary bus, which stood 10 feet away from the said bus. Although, Mr. Bhatia tried to convince me that there was also negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus, I am not impressed by such submission in view of the fact that it was the duty of the bus owned by the appellant not to overtake the S.T. Bus when it found that other bus was at the middle of the road and that all the passengers could not come inside the bus. 8. Therefore, it was for the negligence of the driver and conductor of the bus owned by the appellant that the accident occurred. If the bus owned by the appellant did not try to overtake the standing bus, there would not have been any occasion for the accident resulting in the death of two of its passengers. 9. I therefore, find no substance in the first contention of Mr. Bhatia. 10. If the bus owned by the appellant did not try to overtake the standing bus, there would not have been any occasion for the accident resulting in the death of two of its passengers. 9. I therefore, find no substance in the first contention of Mr. Bhatia. 10. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, as indicated earlier, in First Appeal No. 22 of 2005, the victim was undisputedly aged 40 years and had monthly income of Rs. 4425/, which comes to Rs. 48,000/per annum. If, I apply the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the purpose of taking into consideration the future prospective income, I should add 50% to the actual amount and thus, it comes to Rs. 72,000/. On the basis of age of 40 years, the appropriate multiplier should be 15 and total amount will come to Rs. 10,80,000/. Since the victim left five heirs, i.e. a widow and four children, in my opinion, 1/6 should be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the same should come to Rs. 9 lac. It appears that the Tribunal has further added an amount of Rs. 20,000/towards expectation of life and a further sum of Rs. 20,000/for consortium towards widow. 11. In my opinion, the amount of Rs. 20,000/towards consortium for the widow should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/, but since the claimants have not preferred any appeal, I restrict the same to Rs. 24,800/, so that the ultimate amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below remains the same. 12. So far as other appeal being First Appeal No. 23 of 2005 is concerned, the Tribunal below on the basis of notional income of Rs. 1500/a month has applied multiplier of 16 and has further added a sum of Rs. 20,000/towards expectation of life. Although, Mr. Bhatia contended that the Tribunal below should not have awarded more than the amount claimed, in my opinion, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurucharan Singh and others, reported in 2003(1) GLR 897, the Tribunal below has rightly awarded the said amount in the facts of the present case, although this Rs. 8000/is more than the amount actually paid. 13. 8000/is more than the amount actually paid. 13. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we thus, find that these two appeals are devoid of any substance and are thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.