JUDGMENT Usha Shukla, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 24.11.1992 passed in Claim Case No. 5/90, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Bastar. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are thus; that one Sahdeo, aged about 30 years, husband of respondent No. land father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 died in motor accident by the stage damage bus No. MIH 4600 of the appellant driven by respondent No. 5, during the course of employment. Respondents for the death of Sahdeo arising out of the use of motor vehicle filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. 3. The defence of the respondent No. 5 was that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he committed suicide by dashing with the bus. The Tribunal disbelieved the defence set up and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 5. The deceased was carrying on business of diary, the Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the respondents estimated monthly income of the deceased Rs. 1/500/- per month, in that, after deducting Rs. 500/- for the personal living expenses of the deceased, dependency was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 18 into the multiplicand of Rs. 12/000/- the compensation was calculated to Rs. 2,16,000/-. In that deduction of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- paid with interest under "no fault liability". Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,96,000/-, wherein an amount of Rs. 73,440/- towards the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed payment of the amount under 'no fault liability' for a period from 23.1.90 to 23.11.92 was also added making the total amount of Rs. 2,69,440/ - payable to the respondents. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. A.G. Dhande, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding holding that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus are erroneous. The multiplier applied of 18 is on higher side as the deceased was aged 30 years the multiplier applied ought not to have been more than sixteen. A decision in case of G.M.K.S.R.T. Corpn. The multiplier applied of 18 is on higher side as the deceased was aged 30 years the multiplier applied ought not to have been more than sixteen. A decision in case of G.M.K.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas and a decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Ashadevi 1988 MPLJ 346 , was pressed into service. It was also submitted that the award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for delayed payment as the amount of payment under no fault liability is illegal. 5. Mr. G.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supported the award. 6. After reappraisal of evidence, we are of the opinion that, the finding of rash and negligent driving is unassailable as there is no perversity. No special feature in the evidence of the particular witness which has escaped the notice of the Tribunal was pointed out. From the statement of the respondent No. 5, the driver of the bus, it is evident that the road was crowdy, because of rush on the road he could not see that the right front portion of the bus has dashed with some one. He even did not stop the bus inspite of the cries of the people but took it to the bu s stand. True the speed alone cannot be a consideration for holding the driver as rash and negligent. Speed on a Highway, even speed of 50 kms. or so cannot be said to be high. However, on a busy road speed of 10 kms. will be a case of high speed, if the driver of the bus does not take care to avoid the accident. The deceased was standing in front of his diary shop where he was dashed and crushed by the front wheel of the bus. It is well settled that the Trial Court's decree and findings recorded on an issue turning on oral evidence will not be disturbed in appeal as the appellate Court 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. It is well settled that the Trial Court's decree and findings recorded on an issue turning on oral evidence will not be disturbed in appeal as the appellate Court 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 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 Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bat and Ors. . 7. However, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants on quantum of compensation being excessive deserves consideration. The Tribunal after estimating the dependency applied the multiplier of 18 in the multiplicand of Rs. 12,000/- which in our opinion is on higher side. The deceased was aged 30 years. Therefore, the multiplier ought to have been applied of 16 in the multiplicand of Rs. 12,000/-, the compensation would come to Rs. 1,92,000/-, in view of the decisions cited by the Counsel for appellant. In Rs. 1,92,000/- an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of consortium is to be added the total compensation of Rs. 2,07,000/- the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be entitled to with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till deposit. The appellant Corporation shall deposit the said amount less the amount already deposited by it with accrued interest within a period of two months, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum. On deposit the Tribunal shall disburse the amount keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Susamma Thomas (supra). 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted as indicated herein above. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.