JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 05, 1988 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and enhanced the. rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum though neither any appeal nor any cross objection was filed, by the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.1.80 deceased Jahoor Mohammed and injured Dalpat Singh, Chandrakala and Ratanpal alongwith other passengers boarded the bus No. RSB 1044 at Doongarpur. The bus was going 1 Toni Doongarpur to Udaipur. Near village Valicha, the bus fell down in a pit. On account of this accident Jahoor Mohammed died while Dalpat Singh, Mst. Chandrakala and Ratanpal received injuries. Mst. Memuna and eight others, who are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased Jahoor Mohammed, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident.Claims Tribunal, Udaipur for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,08,000/-. This claim petition was registered as Claim Petition No. 87 of 1980. Injured Dalpat Singh filed Claim Petition No. 114 of 1981) for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 89,1(X)/-, Smt. Chandrakala, the other injured in the accident, filed Claim Petition No. 126 of 1980 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 26,000/- while injured Ratanpal-the third injured-filed Claim Petition No. 130 of 1980 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 21,(X)0/-. Since all these four claim petitions relate to the same accident in which Jahoor Mohammed died and the other three claimants received injuries, the learned Judge of the Tribunal decided all the four claim petitions by the judgment/award dated -9.12.89. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation in the claim petition filed by Smt. Memuna and others to the extent of Rs. 1,92,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum; Rs. 8000/- in the claim petition filed by Dalpat Singh alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, Rs. 5000/- in the claim petition filed by Smt. Chandrakala alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and Rs. 7500/- alongwith interest @ 6% in the claim petition filed by injured Ratanpal. The remaining claims of the claimants were dismissed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The appeal has been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. only in the present case and no appeal has been filed so far as the other three claim petitions are concerned. 7500/- alongwith interest @ 6% in the claim petition filed by injured Ratanpal. The remaining claims of the claimants were dismissed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The appeal has been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. only in the present case and no appeal has been filed so far as the other three claim petitions are concerned. 3. The R.S.R.T.C. had filed the appeal against the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by Mst. Memuna and others but did not file any appeal in the other claim petitions. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 5.2.88 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants but, however, enhanced the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum. It is against this judgment dated 5.2.88 that the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge is highly excessive looking to the age and income of the deceased and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier of twenty in the present case while the deceased, at the time of his death, was 32 years of age. The compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance over : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and another ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ) and Smt. Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and other [JT 1996(3) SC 252]. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The first question which requires consideration in the present case is whether the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge is an adequate amount of compensation or it is on the higher side ? Deceased Jahoor Mohammed, at the time of his death, was 32 years of age. As per the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the claimants have suffered the loss of dependency of Rs. 800/- per month, i.e., Rs. Deceased Jahoor Mohammed, at the time of his death, was 32 years of age. As per the learned Judge of the Tribunal, the claimants have suffered the loss of dependency of Rs. 800/- per month, i.e., Rs. 9600/- per annum and applied the multiplier of twenty. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in : General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and another (supra), if we determine the compensation looking to the loss of dependency caused to the claimants, the future prospects of enhancement of the income of the deceased and apply the multiplier of fourteen looking to the age of the deceased at the time of his death, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,68,800/- (Rs. 800 x 2 x 12 x 14) and if the loss of dependency, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others (supra) is determined then it comes to Rs. 2,01,600/- (800 x 3/2 x 12 x 14). The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- only which is much less than the amount that should have been awarded to the claimants in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, much on the lower side and not on the higher side. But since neither any appeal nor any cross-objection has been filed by the claimants, the amount of enhanced compensation cannot be awarded to the claimants. 7. The next point which requires consideration is : whether the amount of interest can be enhanced in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection filed by the claimants ? It has been held by the Supreme Court in : Smt. Chawali Devi v. Delhi Municipal Council ( AIR 1986 SC 1191 ) and Jaggar Singh v. general Manager, Punjab Roadways [1987(1) ACC 1], that in the absence of appeal or cross-objection filed by the claimants, the amount of interest can still be awarded. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, devoid of any force. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******