JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.6.1987 of M.A.C.T., West Nimar (Mandleshwar), passed in Claim Case No. 121 of 1985 whereby the claimants-respondents have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- for the death of Shyam Kumar Sharma in a motor accident on 17.2.1985 near culvert of village Jamli. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-non-applicants (including insurance company). A cross-objection against the award has also been filed by respondents-claimants. 2. This is not in dispute that the respondents are legal heirs of Shyam Kumar Sharma. The appellant-N.A. No. 1 is owner of motor bus MBU 400, the same was being driven by appellant-N.A. No. 2 at the relevant time and was insured with appellant-N.A. No. 3. Shyam Kumar was working as Assistant Engineer, he was admitted to Choitram Hospital and died on 22.2.1985 because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 3. The brief history of the case is that Shyam Kumar Sharma was going to Julwania from Newal on motor cycle, one Bhagirath Verma was a pillion rider, they reached the culvert of village Jamli. The motor bus No. MBU 400 came at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle. Both the persons were thrown away. The motor cycle was also damaged. The driver of the bus took away the bus. Some other persons detected the accident and the matter was reported to the police. During investigation the motor bus No. MBU 400 was also seized and given back to the owner and driver on supurdginama. 4. The respondents-claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 3,95,000/-. It was asserted that the deceased Shyam Kumar Sharma was S.D.O. in irrigation, was aged about 32 years and was getting Rs. 1,500/- after usual deduction. There were chances of his promotion and working up to the age of 58 years. The claimants have suffered mental agony, loss of consortium, love and affection. 5. Appellants-non-applicants resisted the claim petition including the fact of accident. 6. The learned Tribunal gave a finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (motor bus No. MBU 400) by appellant-N.A. No. 2. The learned Tribunal assessed dependency at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and applied a multiplier of 16, thereafter making deduction of 15 per cent for payment as a lump sum amount. Rs. 6. The learned Tribunal gave a finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (motor bus No. MBU 400) by appellant-N.A. No. 2. The learned Tribunal assessed dependency at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and applied a multiplier of 16, thereafter making deduction of 15 per cent for payment as a lump sum amount. Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as loss of consortium and as such a total compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- was awarded. 7. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-N.As., i.e., owner and driver of the motor bus and insurance company. Thereafter, cross-objection has also been filed, as referred above. 8. The contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the fact of accident and forceful impact between motor bus No. MBU 400 and the motor cycle driven by deceased Shyam Kumar Sharma has not been proved and, therefore, the owner and driver and consequently the insurance company cannot be held liable. It has also been submitted that the income and dependency has been assessed on the higher side and multiplier has also been wrongly applied. 9. As against it, learned counsel for claimants-respondents has submitted that the fact of accident has been found proved from the evidence of claimants' witnesses and the circumstances brought in evidence and, therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Tribunal is correct. Second contention of learned counsel for respondents is that while assessing the income of the deceased, dearness allowance has not been considered, the deduction like G.P.F., etc., was for the benefit of the deceased and consequently his legal heirs (claimants here) and, therefore, that ought to have been taken into consideration while assessing the dependency. 10. We were taken to the evidence on record. The claimants have examined Khuman, PW 3, Sukh Lal, PW 4, for proving the fact of rash and negligent driving. Khuman has stated that there was a collision between a bus and motor cycle which was coming from Sendhwa side, the bus was coming from the side of Julwania and going towards Sendhwa. There was a sound of an impact but the motor bus did not stop. He, therefore, went to the spot and found the driver of the motor cycle and other person lying injured. Meanwhile one truck came from other side, the driver of the truck was requested to take injured persons to Sendhwa. There was a sound of an impact but the motor bus did not stop. He, therefore, went to the spot and found the driver of the motor cycle and other person lying injured. Meanwhile one truck came from other side, the driver of the truck was requested to take injured persons to Sendhwa. Injured Shyam Kumar Sharma was taken to Sendhwa. It has come in evidence subsequently that injured Sharma was taken to Choitram Hospital on 18.2.1985 at about 9.00 p.m. Suresh, PW 7, has proved that Sharma died on 22.2.1985 at about 8 p.m. He has proved the document P-7. This witness Khuman has been contradicted from his earlier statement but police statement has not been proved and, therefore, the same cannot be used for contradiction. 11. Sukh Lal, PW 4, has also stated that he saw the collision between the motor bus and motor cycle but the motor bus did not stop. The motor truck came from the opposite side and informed that motor bus MBU 400 only has crossed them. This witness has been tried to be contradicted from earlier statement and the same has been proved by PW 1. 12. Claimants have filed Exh. P-4, the panchnama of seizure of motor bus No. MBU 400, insurance policy and the permit of the vehicle. This fact has been admitted by N.A. No. 2-appellant Abdul Salim who appeared as DW 2. The claimants-applicants have filed document P-10 that shows that Abdul Salim was arrested for the offence and memo of arrest was prepared, which has also been admitted by driver who has appeared as DW 2. This shows that during investigation motor bus was seized and the accused was arrested. It is also not in dispute, as admitted during the course of arguments, that the challan was filed against the accused Abdul Salim in the court of J.M.F.C. Claimants have also filed document P/8-C that goes to show that after the investigation, challan against accused Salim was filed. Khuman, PW 3, and Sukh Lal, PW 4, have further stated that only one motor bus which was involved in the accident passed through and crossed the truck which came on the spot and took injured Sharma to Sendhwa. 13. Khuman, PW 3, and Sukh Lal, PW 4, have further stated that only one motor bus which was involved in the accident passed through and crossed the truck which came on the spot and took injured Sharma to Sendhwa. 13. All these circumstances go to show that accident occurred due to forcible impact between the motor bus No. MBU 400 driven by N.A. No. 2-appellant and motor cycle driven by deceased Sharma himself. 14. Learned counsel for appellant has tried to assail the finding mainly on the ground as Bhagirath Verma, pillion rider, was not produced. Though it is true that he was an important witness of the accident but mere non-production of Bhagirath Verma will not be sufficient to reject the whole case of the claimants. The fact of forcible impact has been proved from the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and the circumstances discussed above. In such cases where civil liability is to be fixed, the preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to prove the case. The rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in such cases is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence and documents on record and the circumstances appearing in the case go to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver-appellant No. 2. The finding of learned Tribunal to that extent is correct. We also affirm the same. 15. Now so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, claimants have filed document Exh. P/4-C which shows the date of birth of Sharma (the deceased) to be 1.9.1953 and the accident in February, 1985. Thus the deceased was aged about 32 years and finding of the learned Tribunal is also correct. The claimants filed copy of degree Exh. P/5-C, thus it is also proved that the deceased was Bachelor of Engineering, qualified person. The fact of his working as S.D.O. in irrigation has not been controverted. Shogalal Sharma, PW 1, has proved the certificate P-l, that shows that the basic pay of deceased was Rs. l,410/-. He has further stated that deceased was getting D.A. over and above his basic pay. The D.A. in those days was more than 50 per cent, we can take judicial notice of this fact. Shogalal Sharma, PW 1, has proved the certificate P-l, that shows that the basic pay of deceased was Rs. l,410/-. He has further stated that deceased was getting D.A. over and above his basic pay. The D.A. in those days was more than 50 per cent, we can take judicial notice of this fact. Thus, in our opinion, the income of Shyam Kumar Sharma on the date of accident must have been more than Rs. 2,000/- and nearly Rs. 2,100/-. If 1/3rd amount is deducted for personal expenses of Shyam Kumar Sharma, the dependency of the. family, i.e., the claimants would come to nearly Rs. 1,400/- p.m. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years, a multiplier of 14 will have to be adopted. Reference may be had to a decision of Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). Thus, the yearly dependency would come to Rs. 1,400/- x 12 = Rs. 16,800/-. On application of multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 2,35,200/-. The learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 15 per cent for lump sum payment. In our opinion, the same was not justified. Once the principle of multiplier is applied, the deduction for lump sum payment is uncalled for. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/-for loss of consortium but has awarded nothing to claimant Nos. 2 and 3 for loss of love and affection. They are entitled to at least Rs. 4,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Thus, amount of compensation would come to Rs. 2,48,200/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 2,48,000/-. 16. In our opinion, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same. Thus the appeal deserves dismissal and the cross-objection deserves to be accepted. 17. As a result, the appeal filed by the non-applicants (appellants here) is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the claimants (respondents here) is partly allowed and it is directed that claimants-respondents would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,48,000/- with 12 per cent interest from the date of application (10.6.1985) till realisation of the same. They are further entitled to the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-. 2,48,000/- with 12 per cent interest from the date of application (10.6.1985) till realisation of the same. They are further entitled to the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-. Learned Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount, taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).