JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 31.12.1985, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1983, passed by Mr. R.K. Sharma, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are thus: That the appellants-claimants are father and mother respectively of the deceased Rajendra Pal, who met with an accident and died at the young age of 24 years. It is said that on 23.10.1982 at about 12.15 p.m. Rajendra Pal, the deceased, was driving motor cycle No. 627 on the way from Morena to Gwalior. Narendra Pal (father of the deceased) just following him also proceeded on a scooter with Rakesh, AW 4, sitting as pillion rider. As soon as the deceased Rajendra Pal reached near the Chhofa Gaon a car bearing No. CP.W. 277 came from the opposite direction at an excessive speed and dashed against motor cycle driven by Rajendra Pal. Rajendra Pal sustained serious injuries on his legs and other parts of the body. Appellant Narendra Pal took lift in the same car and brought his son Rajendra Pal to Morena Hospital. He was examined by a doctor, who advised that he be shifted to Gwalior and accordingly he was shifted to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, where on 24.10.1982 at about 2.15 p.m. he died. Death certificate, Exh. P-21, is on record. 3. Claimants' case is that Rajendra Pal was a young boy, dealing in electrical goods in a shop named Leela Traders and was earning near about Rs. 1,000/- p.m. He was also a student of LL.B., IInd year, as well as President of Students Union. He was quite healthy and had extra-curricular activities. Under different heads in all Rs. 16,00,000/- were claimed as compensation. 4. Respondent No. 1, the owner and respondent No. 2, the driver of the car, have filed written statements. Respondent No. 1 contended that prior to the date of incident he had already sold the car to Vinod Kumar Khandelwal, respondent No. 4 and had delivered its possession also, hence, he is not responsible for any compensation. He also denied all other allegations and stated that the car was insured, so, if any compensation is awarded, the insurance company will be liable to pay the same. He also denied all other allegations and stated that the car was insured, so, if any compensation is awarded, the insurance company will be liable to pay the same. The respondent No. 2 has contended that the deceased Rajendra Pal himself was negligent, who dashed against the car, which was said to have been stationary, by his motor cycle, as a result of which his car was damaged. He then took the deceased to the hospital in his car. He denied that the car was coming from Gwalior to Morena. Therefore, the deceased was himself responsible for the accident in question. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the presence of Narendra Pal and Rakesh on the spot. 5. The respondent No. 3, insurance company, has also filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the accident was due to carelessness of the deceased himself, hence, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. It was further contended that in any case if respondent No. 3 is held liable to pay any compensation, its responsibility is within the conditions of the policy. 6. Respondent No. 4, to whom the car is said to have been sold, did not appear, though served. Hence, case against him proceeded ex parte. 7. The claimants examined Narendra Pal, AW 1, (claimant No. 1), Dr. V.K. Diwan, AW 2, R.B. Dixit, AW 3, Rakesh Sharma, AW 4, F.A. Khan, AW 5 and Dr. Yogendra Singh, AW 6 and filed as many as 23 documents. The first two witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and then both of them absented. The respondents did not produce any oral evidence. 8. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding that since rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 2 is not proved in the case, the appellants-claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that no evidence was led by the respondents and the witnesses produced by the appellants proved the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 2, driver, the Tribunal has recorded the finding contrary to evidence. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that no evidence was led by the respondents and the witnesses produced by the appellants proved the rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 2, driver, the Tribunal has recorded the finding contrary to evidence. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the backlight of the car was damaged and it shows that the accident occurred when the car was standing. However, the appellants have stated that the backlight was already broken and this was the reason that broken pieces of glass were not found on the spot. The finding of the Tribunal is based on presumption and not on evidence. It was also submitted that Rakesh Sharma, P.W. 4, has not been cross-examined by the respondents, hence, his version cannot be disbelieved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver (respondent No. 2). 11. None appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 4, but the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have contested the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has discussed all the evidence thoroughly and has come to the right conclusion. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-merited. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed with costs. 12. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the record we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that it was Rajendra Pal, who was driving the motor cycle negligently, is absolutely perverse. There is no basis for it. Narendra Pal, AW 1, has clearly stated that he was going on a scooter following the motor cycle. He saw that at the time of accident ' the car was being driven rashly and negligently. He took his son to the hospital in the said car to Morena. He lodged detailed report of the incident (Exh. P-14) the same day within 45 minutes of the accident, i.e., at 12.50 p.m. on 23.10.1982. He further says that after due investigation an offence under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against non-applicant/respondent No. 2. There is absolutely nothing to challenge this version. 13. Dr. Diwan, AW 2, has corroborated the version regarding injuries found on the body of the deceased. He further says that after due investigation an offence under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against non-applicant/respondent No. 2. There is absolutely nothing to challenge this version. 13. Dr. Diwan, AW 2, has corroborated the version regarding injuries found on the body of the deceased. His report is Exh. P-17. R.B. Dixit, AW 3, is the person who has been examined regarding ownership of the car. According to him, on the date of accident respondent No. 1 was owner of the car as the car was transferred in the name of respondent No. 4 after the incident, on 3.11.1982. Rakesh Sharma, AW 4, has also categorically stated that though Rajendra Pal was going at moderate speed, a car came at excessive speed and hit the deceased. There is nothing to disbelieve this witness. Dr. Yogendra Singh took X-ray of the left leg and found compound fracture. 14. Having considered all the materials on record this court is of opinion that it was car driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he is responsible for accident in question. The driver did not examine himself nor adduced any evidence to prove his defence. There is overwhelming evidence on record that it was the car driver who was rash and negligent. The finding of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, set aside. 15. The next question for determination is that what should be the compensation and who are liable? The learned Tribunal though rejected the claim petition, but in para 15 of the award has held that in case the claimants succeed they would be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 67,500/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 22.4.1983. In our view, the assessment of compensation by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. 16. Having examined the case, in the facts and circumstances as above, we find that the deceased Rajendra Pal was dealing in electrical goods and was earning Rs. 1,000/- p.m., he must be spending Rs. 400/- on self. Therefore, we fix loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. As he was aged 24 years at the time of accident, a multiplier of 16 would be just and proper. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,15,200 (Rs. 600/- x 12 x 16). 1,000/- p.m., he must be spending Rs. 400/- on self. Therefore, we fix loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. As he was aged 24 years at the time of accident, a multiplier of 16 would be just and proper. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,15,200 (Rs. 600/- x 12 x 16). Since due to sudden death of Rajendra Pal the claimants suffered shock and agony, hence, under this head also the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,800/-. Thus, in all, the claimants-appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation, which shall be recovered jointly and severally from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Since the respondent No. 4 was not found to be the owner of the car by the Tribunal, and rightly so, he is held not responsible to pay any compensation. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-.