JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2. The appellant-Corporation herein has challenged the award dated 28.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 3336 of 2006 so far as the Tribunal held the appellant responsible for the accident in question and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,89,000/- to the original claimants at 7.5% interest. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 16.07.1997 while the son of original claimants was riding his scooter and coming from Anand railway station, an S.T bus driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently, knocked down the son of the claimant. The son of claimant sustained injuries and finally succumbed to the same and therefore the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 4. Ms. Falguni Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in holding that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the S.T bus driver. It is submitted that the original opponent no. 1 was driving his vehicle in a moderate speed and complying with the rules. 4.1 Ms. Patel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amounts under various heads. She submitted that the amounts awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, loss to estate are excessive and the multiplier adopted is also on higher side and therefore the same may be reduced. 5. Mr. Vaibhav Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the original claimant supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the original opponent no. 1 was solely responsible for the accident in question. 5.1 Mr. Sheth submitted that even the compensation awarded in the present case is just and proper and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned award. He submitted that the amounts under the various heads are just and proper. 6. 1 was solely responsible for the accident in question. 5.1 Mr. Sheth submitted that even the compensation awarded in the present case is just and proper and therefore no interference is called for in the impugned award. He submitted that the amounts under the various heads are just and proper. 6. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the son of original claimants sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal has in para 6 observed that a charge sheet was also filed against the driver. From the extent of damage as shown in the panchnama it is clear that one of the accident had taken place on account of the negligence on the part of the S.T. Bus driver and the FIR also corroborates the same. 7. The son of the claimants was just 28 years old but the parents were in the age bracket of around 51 to 55 years. Earlier the matter was adjourned as time was sought to go through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 wherein it is stated that 50% of the deceaseds income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and remaining 50% should be treated as contribution to family. In this case the deceased was a married person and therefore 50% cannot be the deduction. The Tribunal has not committed any manifest error in awarding the amount of compensation. It is true that in the year 2009, the judgements were otherwise and the multiplier ought to have been 13 but this Court feels that in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court, no fault could be found and the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. 8. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.