JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Nadiad passed in MACP No. 528 of 1992, by which, learned Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid claim petition in entirety and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15 lacs towards compensation for the death of deceased Keshavlal Ramkishan Lodha by holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent, the appellant-original opponent Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. In a vehicular accident which took place on 28.03.1992 and when the deceased was crossing the road as a pedestrian one ST Bus bearing No. GRU 6963 driven by the opponent driver dashed with the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the original claimants heirs and legal representative of the deceased filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming total sum of Rs. 15 lacs in all towards compensation for the death of deceased. 2.1. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that driver of the ST Bus which was owned by original opponent was rash and negligent and was driven at a speed and dashed the ST bus from rear portion of the driver side of the bus and due to which deceased knocked down and subsequently died on the spot. It was submitted that therefore, driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident was sole negligent for the accident. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident deceased was serving as Supervisor in the ONGC and was getting a total salary of Rs. 9835/-) basic salary of Rs.5923/-). It was also specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the salary of the deceased/pay scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1992 as per the report of the 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that prospective income of the deceased is required to be considered at Rs. 15,000/- per month. 2.2. It was also specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the salary of the deceased/pay scale was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1992 as per the report of the 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that prospective income of the deceased is required to be considered at Rs. 15,000/- per month. 2.2. On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, panchnama of place of accident produced at Exh.21 and considering the fact that the opponent has not examined the driver of the ST Bus and considering the fact that driver of the ST bus who can be said to be best witness to explain the accident has not stepped into witness box and considering the fact that ST bus dashed with the deceased on the rear portion of the driver side of the ST bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 2.3. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs. 15000/- per month and thereafter after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 10,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 11, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 13,20,000/- towards loss of dependency. After awarding further sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards expectation of life; Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of gratuity and Rs. 5000/- towards transportation and funeral charges expenses, the learned Tribunal has held that the original claimants are entitled to total sum of Rs. 15,95,000/- towards compensation. However, in the claim petition, the claim was restricted to Rs. 15 lacs only, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15 lacs to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of deceased. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant herein - original opponent - GSRTC has preferred the present appeal on the aspect of negligence as well as on quantum also. 3. Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant-original opponent GSRTC has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 3.1. It is further submitted by Ms. 3. Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant-original opponent GSRTC has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 3.1. It is further submitted by Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant GSRTC that while holding the driver of the ST bus sole negligent, the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the deceased who at the relevant time was a pedestrian was trying to cross the road and dashed on the front side of the ST Bus. 3.2. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that no witness has been examined on behalf of the claimants to prove the negligence of the driver of the ST Bus. 3.3. It is further submitted by Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant GSRTC that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the FIR was given by the driver of the ST Bus himself, in which, it was specifically alleged by him that while crossing the road the deceased was dashed on the front portion of the ST Bus. 3.4. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent. In the alternatively, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have held the deceased contributory negligent to some extent as by crossing the road, he was also required to take due care and caution. 3.5. Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant - GSRTC has submitted that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 15 lacs towards compensation to the original claimants for the death of deceased Keshavlal Lodha. 3.6. It is submitted that considering the fact that at the time of death of the deceased salary of the deceased was Rs. 9835/-per month which was included all other allowances and deceased was aged 50 years of age, learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the future rise in income and considering the prospective income at Rs.15,000/- per month. 3.6. It is submitted that considering the fact that at the time of death of the deceased salary of the deceased was Rs. 9835/-per month which was included all other allowances and deceased was aged 50 years of age, learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the future rise in income and considering the prospective income at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 50 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss/loss of dependency considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants. It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the fact that the driver of the ST Bus who can be said to be best witness to explain the manner in which the accident has taken place has not stepped into witness box, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the ST Bus sole negligent. 4.1. It is further submitted that even the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the ST Bus sole negligent is on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the panchnama of place of accident produced at Exh.21. It is submitted that from the panchnama of the place of accident, it emerges that the deceased dashed on the rear portion of the driver side of the ST Bus, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the case on behalf of the GSRTC that the deceased dashed on the front portion of the ST Bus. It is submitted that if that be so, learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 4.2. It is submitted that if that be so, learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 4.2. Now, so far as the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the evidence on record that the there was a revision of pay as per the report of the 5th Pay Commission within two months from the date of death of the deceased and w.e.f. 1.1.1992, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the future rise in income and has rightly considered the prospective income at Rs. 15,000/- per month. Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and others v. Administrative Officer and Another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suryaben Harisingbhai Bilwal v. Ataullakhan Mehtabkhan Lalkhan Pathan & ors reported in 2001(3) GLR 2029 . 4.3. It is submitted that even otherwise the learned Tribunal as such has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 11 while awarding loss of dependency. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 50 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 13 was required to be applied. It is submitted that instead learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11. 4.4. It is submitted by Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting the 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that looking to the number of dependents only 1/4 was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that instead the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional head. 4.5. It is submitted that therefore, as such the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be on lower side. It is further submitted by Shri Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional head. 4.5. It is submitted that therefore, as such the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be on lower side. It is submitted that though the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,95,000/- towards compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15 lacs as the original claimants in the claim petition was claimed Rs. 15 lacs only. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has held that driver of the ST bus involved in the accident sole negligent. From the panchnama of the place of accident produced at Exh.21, it appears that the ST bus dashed with the deceased on the rear portion of the driver side of the ST Bus. Considering the above, learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the case on behalf of the ST Corporation that while crossing the road, deceased dashed on the front portion of the ST Bus. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal has also rightly disbelieved the case on behalf of the driver of the ST bus so stated in the FIR. 6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the driver of the ST bus who can be said to be best witness to explain the accident and/or to explain the manner in which accident had taken place has not stepped into witness box. Under the circumstances, as such even adverse inference can be drawn against the driver. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in holding the driver of the ST Bus sole negligent. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent is hereby confirmed. 8. Now, so far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the ST Bus involved in the accident sole negligent is hereby confirmed. 8. Now, so far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 13,21,000/- towards loss of dependency considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is true that at the time of accident/death, the deceased was aged 50 years of age and as per the salary slip produced at Exh.23 his salary was Rs. 9835/-per month. However, it is required to be noted that within two months there was a revision of pay on the basis of the report of the 5th Pay Commission. The original claimants have led the cogent evidence by examining PW No.2 and produced on record what salary the deceased would have got on the basis of the revision of pay scale as per the report of the 5th Pay Commission and that too as on 1.1.1992. It is required to be noted that accident has taken place on 23.08.1992 and the revision of pay scale was w.e.f. 1.1.1992 i.e. prior to date of accident. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is required to be considered whether the learned Tribunal is justified in considering the prospective income at Rs. 15000/-per month or as the deceased was aged 50 years of age nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income and his income/salary while awarding future economic loss was required to be considered at Rs. 9835/- per month, which deceased was getting at the time of accident/death ? It is true that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was aged 50 years of age, nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income. However, subsequently in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), more particularly, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that in case of deceased aged 50 years nothing is required to be added as future rise in income. In the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Rule of thumb was evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) to overcome imponderables and uncertainties to avoid different yardsticks. It is further observed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that Rule of thumb is to be applied to those cases where there is no concrete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects. It is observed that it can be deviated from in exceptional circumstances where income of deceased was bound to increase. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the deceased (government servant) was entitled to and in fact bound to get a raise in income in future, a fact which was corroborated by evidence on record. Therefore, it was found that it was an exceptional circumstances and not within the purview of Sarla Verma rule of thumb and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted future rise in income despite the deceased was above 50 years of age. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saruyaben Harisingbhai Bilwal (supra) and in the identical fact situation the High Court granted future rise in income considering the subsequent revision of pay scale. 9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is even otherwise on lower side. It is required to be noted that as the deceased was 50 years of age, multiplier of 13 was required to be applied. Instead, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier 11. 10. Even the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the number of dependents, only was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. To the aforesaid extent, learned Tribunal has committed grave error. If the learned Tribunal would have applied appropriate and proper multiplier and would have made proper deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, in that case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal would have much more. Even the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding only Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional head. If the learned Tribunal would have applied appropriate and proper multiplier and would have made proper deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, in that case, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal would have much more. Even the learned Tribunal has committed any error in awarding only Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional head. It is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award as such the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 15,95,000/- . However, as the claim in the claim petition was restricted to Rs. 15 lacs, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15 lacs only. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal fail and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.