JUDGMENT : The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the GSRTC') is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6th January 1997 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.365 of 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar. By the impugned award, the Honourable Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs.4,93,000/-holding both the opponents jointly and severally liable. The Honourable Tribunal was pleased to award interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization with proportionate costs. 2. The aforesaid petition arose from the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 16th June 1996 at about 4.30 p.m. in between village Sagwadi and Sargav at a place which is about four kilometers away from Sihore on Sihore-Tana road in Bhavnagar district. The claim petition was filed for a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. In the accident, one scooter bearing registration No. GRI-3144 and a State Transport bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-2236 were involved. The case of the claimants in the claim petition is that the deceased (scooterist) was driving his scooter at the relevant time slowly and on correct side of the road, but the opponent No.1 (the driver of the State Transport bus) was driving the State Transport bus in a rash and negligent manner, which was of the ownership of opponent No.2 (GSRTC), and caused the accident. 3. The Honourable Tribunal has set out the facts of the case in paragraph No.3, which read as under: “According to the petitioners, deceased Rasulbhai was serving in ST Corporation as driver and after completing his duties, deceased Rasulbhai had come to Sihor in an ST bus and from Sihor, deceased was coming towards village Kharakadi on his scooter. According to the petitioners, deceased was driving his scooter slowly and on correct side of the road and when it reached near the scene of offence, about 4 kms. away from Sihor on Sihor-Tana Road, Opponent No.1 came there by driving his ST Bus No. GJ 1 Z 2236 in a rash and negligent manner, in excessive & uncontrollable speed, endangering human lives and on wrong side of the road and by driving his ST bus in such a manner, he dashed his ST bus with the scooter which the deceased was driving. As a result thereof, the deceased was thrown away on the road and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.” The Honourable Tribunal has reproduced the case of the claimants in paragraph No. 5, which reads as under: “According to the petitioners, deceased was aged about 48 years at relevant time and was serving as Driver in the ST Corporation. According tot he petitioners, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 4630/60 per month. According to the petitioners, deceased was the sole bread winner of the entire family and they all were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was hale and hearty and had not he been died in this incident, he could have lived long. Thus, according to the petitioners, with the death of the deceased, they have lost their dependency, shelter, love and affection and a great pecuniary loss too and therefore, they have filed this petition as stated above.” 4. The claim petition was contested by the GSRTC by filing a Written Statement (Exh. 14) wherein it was contended that the claim is neither true nor legal nor bonafide, and they do not admit the claim or any part thereof. It was denied in the Written Statement that the State Transport driver was driving the State Transport bus in a rash and negligent manner. It was contended that the State Transport bus driver was driving the bus slowly and on the correct side of the road, but it was the deceased scooterist who was rash and negligent in driving his scooter, and has thus contributed to the accident to a great extent. The Honourable Tribunal framed the issues at Exh. 15 on 3rd January 1997. Relevant issues are reproduced as under: “1. Whether the claimants prove that the driver of the vehicle No. GJ 1 Z 2236 involved in this incident was rash and negligent in driving his Motor Vehicle? 2. Whether the claimants prove that deceased Rasulbhai died because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in this incident?” The Tribunal answered the above Issues No. 1 and 2 `partly in affirmative'. The Tribunal recorded the oral evidence of Amirben at Exh. 26, and considered the following documentary evidence: “1. Complaint Exh. 16 2. Panchanama Exh. 17 3. Inquest panchanama Exh. 18 4. Statement of Conductor of bus Exh.19 5. The Tribunal recorded the oral evidence of Amirben at Exh. 26, and considered the following documentary evidence: “1. Complaint Exh. 16 2. Panchanama Exh. 17 3. Inquest panchanama Exh. 18 4. Statement of Conductor of bus Exh.19 5. PM Notes Exh. 20 6. Driving licence of dec. Exh. 23 7. Cover note of scooter Exh. 24 8. Birth date certi. Of dec. Exh. 25 9. Salary certificate Exh. 21” 5. The Honourable Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence – oral as well as documentary came to the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence and decided that the ratio of contributory negligence is ninety per cent on the part of the State Transport driver and ten per cent on the part of the scooterist. 6. The Honourable Tribunal then considered the quantum of compensation by analysing the evidence led on the question at paragraph No. 11 of the judgment, which reads as under: “According to the petitioners, deceased was born on 5.6.1949 and was aged about 48 years at relevant time. The petitioners have adduced School leaving certificate of the deceased at Exh. 25 to this effect. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Driver in ST Corporation and was getting the salary of Rs.4630/60 per month. The petitioners have also adduced Salary Certificate of deceased at Exh.21. According tot he petitioners, deceased had studied upto 8th standard. According to the petitioners, deceased was hale and hearty and was the sole bread winner of the family and they all were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased. According to the petitioners, had not the deceased died in this unfortunate incident, he could have lived long and maintained the family. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the deceased was yet to put in at least 12 years service in ST Corporation and every year the salary of the deceased was increasing, besides other allowances. Thus, according to the petitioners, had not the deceased died, the could have earned a good amount during these years and thus, they have also sustained a great pecuniary loss too. Looking to the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case as well as documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, the prospective income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.6000/-p.m. and the dependency of the petitioners would be Rs.48,000/- per annum. Looking to the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case as well as documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners, the prospective income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.6000/-p.m. and the dependency of the petitioners would be Rs.48,000/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased the number of years for which the deceased had to put in his service in ST corporation and principles laid down in 1996(3) GLR 136 S.C., the petitioners are entitled to a multiplier of 11 years and the datum figure would be Rs.5,28,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards the head of loss of estate and the net amount would be Rs.5,48,000/-. However, as discussed above, the deceased was also contributory negligent at the ration of 10% and therefore, an amount of approximately Rs.55,000/-will have to be deducted therefrom and the datum figure would be Rs.4,93,000/- to which the petitioners are entitled to recover as compensation from the opponents.” 7. The learned advocate appearing from the GSRTC vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in apportioning the negligence after having held that it is a case of contributory negligence. The Court is not able to accept the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant, more particularly when the Court finds that the Honourable Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail. The Tribunal on a threadbare analysis of the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a case of contributory negligence and that the same can be apportioned only in the ratio of 90:10. 8. The Courts finds no reason that the findings recorded by the Tribunal should be disturbed. 9. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr Qureshi invited the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , and submitted that in fact this is a case wherein the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the multiplier to be eleven only. Learned advocate submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Apex Court the multiplier should have been not less than thirteen, and it would have been appropriate if it would have been taken to be fourteen. The fact that there is no cross appeal, this Court cannot accept the aforementioned submission of Mr. Learned advocate submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Apex Court the multiplier should have been not less than thirteen, and it would have been appropriate if it would have been taken to be fourteen. The fact that there is no cross appeal, this Court cannot accept the aforementioned submission of Mr. Qureshi, though prima facie the Court is of the opinion that the multiplier of eleven is definitely on a lower side. 10. Taking into consideration the rival submissions of the both the parties, the Court finds that this First Appeal has no substance, and the same is accordingly dismissed.