JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. Appellant is the owner of the vehicle and has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 6.9.1991 passed in Claim Case No. 13 of 1989 by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Damoh. 2. Claimants have filed cross objections for enhancement of compensation. 3. The fact of death of one Hemant Kumar, husband of respondent No. 2, Rekha Bai, in an motor accident on 17.2.1989 is not denied when the deceased was coming in a truck CPO 5415 owned by the appellant and insured with the respondent No. 1. According to the claimants, the deceased was carrying on business of lime stone with his father. At the relevant time he loaded the lime stone for his business and as the owner of the goods was coming in the truck which met with an accident in which Hemant Kumar died, leaving widow and two minor children and parents Tarachand-father and Sulochana Bai the mother of the deceased. The averments made in para 3 of the written statement were not denied by the owner. However, respondent No. l, the Insurance Company, in the written statement denied the facts and contended that the deceased was a passenger in the truck and, therefore, he was being carried in breach of terms of the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation or to indemnify the insured. To prove that Hemant Kumar was travelling in the truck as the owner of the goods, the father of the deceased was examined. The widow, respondent No. 2, also stated that the deceased was carrying on business of the lime stone with his father Tarachand and was coming in the said truck as owner of the lime stone. To the statements made on oath in support of the case pleaded by the claimants in their application neither Tarachand nor the widow of the deceased were cross-examined, nor the Insurance Company put its defence to the witnesses. In rebuttal, the husband of the appellant the owner of the truck was examined who looks after the business of the appellant. He stated that the goods belonged to Tarachand and to that effect a receipt was issued, but that receipt was not produced. In rebuttal, the husband of the appellant the owner of the truck was examined who looks after the business of the appellant. He stated that the goods belonged to Tarachand and to that effect a receipt was issued, but that receipt was not produced. The Tribunal relying on the statement of Raj Kumar and disbelieving the evidence of Tarachand and Rekha Bai held that as the goods did not belong to Hemant Kumar he was travelling in that truck in breach of the terms of the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation or to indemnify the owner/insured. The Tribunal determined dependency at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 15 calculated the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- wherein a deduction of Rs. 18,000/- was made towards the lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. No amount under the head of consortium was awarded. After the Insurance Company was exonerated the appellant was made liable to pay Rs. 90,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 4. The appellant contended that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods, hence in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Harishanker Tiwari v. Jugru and Ors. 1987 JLJ 712 : I (1988) ACC 206 M.P. On behalf of claimants it is contended that the compensation calculated is inadequate as the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month who left his widow and two minor children and parents. Therefore, monthly dependency ought to have been assessed after deducting 1/5th of the personal living expenses from Rs. 1,500/-. As the deceased was aged 27 years, the multiplier ought to have been applied of 16, in view of the decision of this Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Ashadevi and Ors. 1989 JLJ 541 : II (1988) ACC 337 (DB) M.P. It is also submitted that no amount was deductable towards lump sum payment when the multiplier method is applied. Lastly it was submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum. A Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan and Ors. 1991 MPLJ 739 was relied. 5. Lastly it was submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum. A Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan and Ors. 1991 MPLJ 739 was relied. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Company supported the award and submitted that the deceased was neither the labourer nor the owner of the goods and for that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence is unassailable, reliance was placed in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Naravani Bai and Ors. AIR 1983 S.C. 114 . It was submitted that the compensation to awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair, hence it does not call for interference. Lastly it was submitted that if this Court holds that the respondent-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner, the accident occurred in the year 1989 and the appeal filed in the year 1991 has come up for hearing in 1996 for no fault of the respondent-Company, the respondent-Company be not burdened with the interest. 6. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has recorded the finding with erroneous approach. The claimants came with specific case that the deceased was carrying on business of lime stone who was coming in the truck with his lime stone. There is no denial in the written-statement by the owner of the truck. However, the Insurance Company in special plea took a stand that it is not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the truck. On these pleadings Issue Nos. 5(a) and (b) were framed. To prove Issue No. 5(a), the claimant Tarachand who according to the owner of the truck was the owner of the goods, specifically stated on oath that the lime stone belonged to his son Hemant Kumar who was carrying on the business, he as owner loaded the lime stone in the truck and was travelling with the said lime stone. On this statement no questions were put in the cross-examination nor the Insurance Company put up its case. On this statement no questions were put in the cross-examination nor the Insurance Company put up its case. It is settled that when a party does not put its case in the cross-examination or omits to cross-examination on the statements made in examination-in-chief, such statement would be deemed to be accepted as the purpose of the cross-examination is to establish one's own case and to destroy adversary's case. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Tarachand. Besides testimony of Tarachand, there is evidence on record of widow, AW 1 Rekha Devi, AW 3 Indra Kumar, AW 4 Deendayal and AW 5 Kunjbiheri. Indra Kumar is a witness who is a neighbour of the deceased stated on oath that Hemant Kumar was carrying on business of lime stone. AW 4 Deendayal and AW 5 Kunjbihari also stated on the same line. Their statements were also not challenged either by the appellant or the Insurance Company in the cross-examination. This Tribunal did not consider the evidence of AW 3, AW 4 and AW 5. He has not given any reason to disbelieve the statements of Tarachand and other witnesses examined by the claimants. Learned Counsel for the respondent/Company could not point out any apparent defect so as to discard the testimony of the witnesses. There is no material to discard the evidence to the effect that Hemant Kumar was carrying on business of lime stone with his father who as owner of the lime stone was travelling in the truck. Though Raj Kumar stated in his evidence that a goods receipt was issued in the name of Tarachand which was not produced by him. The Tribunal committed an error in not raising adverse inference to the fact that the goods receipt was not issued in the name of Tarachand. Even assuming that the goods receipt was issued in the name of Tarachand, there is ample evidence on record to show that Hemant Kumar and Tarachand were carrying on business jointly of lime stone. Incase of Madhusudan Das (supra) the Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against a Trial Court's decree when the Appellate Court considers an issue turning on oral evidence it must bear in mind that it does not enjoy the advantage which the Trial Court had 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 Trail Court to prevail unless it clearly appears that some special feature about the evidence of the 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. We have pointed out while discussing the evidence of Rekha Devi (AW 1), Tarachand (AW 2), Indra Kumar (AW 3), Deendayal (AW 4), and AW 5 Kunjbihari who in one voice have stated on oath that Hemant Kumar was carrying on business of lime stone, who loaded the lime stone in the truck as owner and was travelling as such. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Harishankar Tiwari's case (supra), the hirer while paying hire charges for carrying the goods in the vehicle and while travelling with the goods for its safety and such vehicle meets with an accident and the hirer of his employee dies or receives bodily injuries, the hirer and his employees both will be covered under the insurance policy under proviso to Section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, in our opinion the findings recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company cannot be sustained are set aside. 7. Coming to the cross-objections of the claimants, we are of the view that so far as the dependency determined at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month, it does not call for any interference. However, the multiplier applies 15 in case of a young man who was 27 years of age who left a widow of 22 years and two minor children aged 6 years and four years, the multiplier ought to have been of 16 in view of the decision in Asha Devi's case. As a result of which the compensation would come to Rs. 1,15,200/- to which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be added as conventional figure in the head of consortium. The total compensation which the claimants would be entitled is Rs. As a result of which the compensation would come to Rs. 1,15,200/- to which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be added as conventional figure in the head of consortium. The total compensation which the claimants would be entitled is Rs. 1,25,000/- in which no education can be made towards the lump sum payment or for uncertainties of life as scientific method of multiplier is applied which takes care of all heads. See the decision of this Court in Fizebai v. Nemichand 1993 M.P.L.J. 30. 8. The Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till decision. However, we are not including to grant full interest for the period of appeal as the Insurance Company cannot be blamed for delay in disposal of the appeal. Therefore, we direct that the claimants would be entitled to the interest for a period of five years out of total period of litigation. See the decision of this Court in case Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Ram Singh 1995 JLJ 342 . The compensation so enhanced with the interest shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of the supply of certified copy. 9. At this stage the learned Counsel for the appellant made a prayer that the appellant has deposited Rs. 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal and further Rs. 25,000/- in compliance with the order dated 25.6.1992. As the appeal of the appellant has been allowed and the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and to pay compensation, if the amounts having been withdrawn by the claimants it shall be reimbursed by the Insurance Company. 10. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objections are allowed in the manner indicated above. The award of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.