JUDGMENT After hearing counsel and on going through the evidence on record, 1 am of opinion 'that this appeal has no merit. Law is well settled that unless some illegality is pointed out or detected, the findings of the trial Court are not liable to be interfered in appeal. The eye-witnesses to the accident were examined before the Tribunal, who had the advantage, which this Court sitting in appeal, does not enjoy, in having the witnesses before it and of observing the manner in which they gave their testimony. When there is a conflict of oral evidence on any matter in issue and its resolution turns upon the credibility of the witnesses, the general rule is that the appellate Court should permit the findings of fact rendered by the trial Court to prevail unless it clearly appears that some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness has escaped the notice of the trial Court or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace its opinion as to where the credibility lies. (See Madhusandas v. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114 ). It was contended by Shri Dhupar that the Tribunal found the deceased aged about 50 years; therefore, the multiplier of 12 fixed by the Tribunal was excessive, hence, the amount of compensation awarded after calculating the monthly dependency is also excessive. In my opinion, this contention has also no merit. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Ashadevi, 1988 JLJ 485 = 1988 MPLJ 346 , that where the deceased persons were in their thirties and/or forties, it is proper to select the multiplier of 15 years. In the cases of deceased persons who were in their twenties and were in the thresh-hold of their career, the multiplier of 16 years should be applied. (See also Malti Vishwakarma v. Sunder Transport Co., 1988 MPLJ 213 (DB). Therefore; the multiplier of 12 fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. But, as the claimants/respondents have not referred any appeal or cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be enhanced. (See also Malti Vishwakarma v. Sunder Transport Co., 1988 MPLJ 213 (DB). Therefore; the multiplier of 12 fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. But, as the claimants/respondents have not referred any appeal or cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be enhanced. As regards interest, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation, which deserves to be enhanced in view of Order 41, Rule 33, CPC, and the highest judicial pronouncements in R.L. Gupta v. Jupiter General Insurance Co., 1990 ACJ 280 (sq, Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, 1987 ACJ 15 (SC) Naroinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC). A Full Bench of this Court, following the mandate of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, took the same view in Prakramchand v. Chuttan alias Alim and others, 1991 JLJ 733 (FB). In Madhiya v. Ramchandra, 1987 (1) MPWN 223, and Union of India v. Balwant Kaur, 1986 (II) MPWN 198, the Division Benches of this Court also took the same view, therefore, interference in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections by the respondents/claimants is warranted to mould the relief of interest to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation so awarded from the date of the application till payment. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. The claimants/respondents shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the total amount of Rs. 36,000/- from the date of the application till payment. The Corporation will, of course, get credit for the amount already paid or deposited by it with the Tribunal, and interest shall be calculated taking into account such payment, if already made. AIR 1983 SC 114 , 1988 MPLJ 213 , 1990 ACJ 280,1987 ACJ 15 (SC), 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) 1991 JLJ 733 , 1987 (I) MPWN 223 and 1986 (II) MPWN 198 relied on. Appeal dismissed.