JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant, who is the original opponent No. 3 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 2nd Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhra (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1483 of 2001 (for brevity, 'the claim petition') has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.01.2006 awarding compensation of Rs.4,88,000/- along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition holding opponents therein jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 2. Short facts of the case may be referred as under: 2.1 The legal heirs of deceased filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- from the opponents therein. As per the averments made in the claim petition on 08.06.2001, deceased Manjulaben was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-20-A-726 and was proceeding from Mora to her village: Sarangpur. The original opponent No. 1, the driver of the jeep, was driving his jeep rashly and negligently and in excessive speed and when, reached near Chopda Bujarg village, at about 12:30 p.m., the driver of the jeep suddenly applied brakes, without any reason and due to excessive speed, the deceased thrown away from the jeep and sustained grievous injuries. On account of the injuries sustained by her, she was expired. As per the averments made in the claim petition, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by tailoring and selling the clothes. That, she used to perform her services to her family as a housewife and therefore, the original claimants requested to pass an award of Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation from the opponents. A complaint was also lodged with Morva police station being C.R. No. I-91 of 2001. 2.2 Pursuant to the summons issued by the Tribunal in the claim petition, the claim petition was not contested by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The opponent No. 3 filed its written statement vide exh. 21 denying the contents and allegations made by the original claimants in the claim petition as they were false and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 1 and 2. The opponent No. 3 filed its written statement vide exh. 21 denying the contents and allegations made by the original claimants in the claim petition as they were false and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The monthly income of the deceased; she was travelling in the offending jeep on 08.06.2001; the opponent No. 1 was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and lost control over the steering; the deceased thrown away from the jeep and sustained any injuries in the accident and on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident, she died; her income of Rs.3,000/- per month from tailoring and selling of clothes, and her rendering services to her family; and also the entitlement of the original claimants for any compensation from the opponents, all these were denied by this opponent. As per their contention, the opponent No. 1 was driving the jeep slowly and on the correct side of the road. That, the accident had occurred due to fault on the part of the deceased herself. As the driver had taken enough care, there was no liability of the original opponent No. 3 to pay any compensation. Ultimately, it was requested to dismiss the claim petition. 2.3 The learned Tribunal, framed the Issues vide exh. 17. After hearing the parties and considering oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and passed the award, as aforesaid. Being dissatisfied, present appeal is preferred by the present appellant – original opponent No. 3 under Section 173 of the Act. 3. This appeal was dismissed against the opponent Nos. 6 and 7 by an order dated 26.06.2018. 4. Heard, learned counsel Mr. Shah for the appellant – insurance company and Mr. Sheth for the original claimants. 4.1 A limited issue was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that after considering the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month only, the Tribunal has committed an error in not deducting 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted that there were five dependents of the deceased and therefore, 1/4th amount would be required to be deducted by the Tribunal, which is, admittedly, not deducted while passing the impugned judgment and award in favour of the original claimants. He further submitted that there were five dependents of the deceased and therefore, 1/4th amount would be required to be deducted by the Tribunal, which is, admittedly, not deducted while passing the impugned judgment and award in favour of the original claimants. Hence, it was requested by the learned counsel for the appellant to allow the present appeal by suitably modifying the impugned judgment and award directing to deduct 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased from his income. 5. As against this, the learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may not be disturbed by this Court as the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospective income of the deceased. He further submitted that the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident, however, the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 15 only as against 18 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (3) GLH 536 . That, if the said multiplier (18) would have been considered as well as the amount under the conventional heads, which is very less, the amount would be equal to the amount awarded. Hence, he requested to dismiss the present appeal considering the facts of the present case. 6. Having gone through material on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue of negligence is not required to be determined by this Court as not disputed. Only the issue of deduction of amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, is required to be adjudicated. It appears from para 12 of the impugned judgment and award that income of the deceased was considered at Rs.2,500/- only after taking into consideration the multifarious services to the family and her help in earning to the her husband for maintaining the family. The age of the deceased was considered as 25 years at the time of accident and therefore, as per the Schedule of Section 163 of the Act, a multiplier of 15 was applied and future loss of income was considered at Rs.4,50,000/- only. The age of the deceased was considered as 25 years at the time of accident and therefore, as per the Schedule of Section 163 of the Act, a multiplier of 15 was applied and future loss of income was considered at Rs.4,50,000/- only. 6.1 It is true that there were five dependents of the deceased and no deduction was made in the impugned award towards personal expenses of the deceased from her income. However, it is also a fact that age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15 and as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), a multiplier of 18 is required to be considered instead of 15. It also appears from para 13 of the impugned judgment and award that under the heads of loss of expectation of life, pain, shock and sufferings and special diet, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.38,000/-. However, in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of Rs.70,000/- would be required to be awarded under the convention heads in the case of death. Here, a lesser amount is awarded by the Tribunal. Though, no appeal is preferred by the original claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal nor any cross-objections is filed by the respondents against the present appeal, this Court is of the view that on one hand, deduction of 1/4th amount is not made from the income of the deceased and on the other hand, a multiplier of 18 as well as Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads are not considered by the Tribunal and in the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court the findings arrived by the Tribunal would not be required to be interfered with in the peculiar facts of the case. 7. In view of the above, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, as aforesaid, is confirmed. R&P be sent back to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. 7.1 As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, as aforesaid, is confirmed. R&P be sent back to the Tribunal concerned forthwith. 7.1 As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case. 7.2 At the request of learned counsel for the original claimants, it is observed that the amount deposited by the present appellant shall be released in favour of the original claimants on a request made by them before the Tribunal.