JUDGMENT 1. - List is revised. Irrespective of due service on the respondents, no one is present, therefore, I proceed ex parte against the respondents. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.3.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in MACT Case No. 09/92. True facts leading to filing of the present appeal are required to be stated at the outset. 3. It is alleged by the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 that Sambhoo Dan had died near the bus stand, Chhapar on 27.7.1985, on account of negligent and rash driving of the Corporation's bus, bearing Registration No. RRB 7184, dashing against varandah of the bus stand. It is further alleged that deceased Sambhoo Dan was resident of Sardar Shahar and had gone to the bus stand by bus and was standing at the bus stand in varandah. At that time the aforesaid bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3, dashed against the varandah constructed in the bus stand due to which pillars of the varandah smashed down and in that process, Sambhoo Dan instantly died on the spot. It is further claimed by the claimants that deceased Sambhoo Dan was a boy of 17 years of age on the date of accident and possessed a good physique. His father-Banwar Dan respondent No. 1, was working as mansion and deceased used to earn Rs. 30-35 per day as labourer. The deceased was expected to become a mansion. The claimants claimed Rs. 1,50,000 / - as financial loss, Rs. 50,000 /- towards maintenance spent by them from his birth till death and rupees one lac for deprivation of love and affection. Thus, the claimants made a total claim of rupees 3 Lacs. 4. Respondent No. 3 filed a reply in the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition by the claimants. It is averred by respondent No. 3 that at the bus stand Chhapar no accident was caused due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. It is also alleged by the respondent No. 3 that on that day he was not driving the bus rashly and negligently but he was driving it at a normal speed. It is averred by respondent No. 3 that the bus dashed against pillars of the varandah due to failure of brakes. It is also alleged by the respondent No. 3 that on that day he was not driving the bus rashly and negligently but he was driving it at a normal speed. It is averred by respondent No. 3 that the bus dashed against pillars of the varandah due to failure of brakes. The compensation claimed was alleged by the respondent No. 3 to be excessive. 5. A separate reply was filed to the claim petition by the appellant-Corporation, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is alleged by the appellants in that reply that the bus was turned to save the deceased but deceased went towards the very side the turn was made and in order to save the deceased the bus dashed to the electricity poll. It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to mistake of the deceased himself and there was no negligence or mistake on the part of bus driver. 6. On the basis of averments made by the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and examined the evidence produced by the parties to prove their respective claims. In support of claim petition, claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 examined AW 1 Trilok Nath, AW 2 Bhanwar Dan, AW 3 Pabu Dan and AW 4 Mal Dan and also produced the FIR lodged about the accident, which is exhibited, as Ex. 1/A and forfeiture memo of the bus "exhibited as Ex. A/2. In support of their defence, the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 examined NAW1 Bodu Ram (Driver), NAW 2 Nath Mal and NAW 3 Krishna Kant Purohit and also filed report of the MTO, which was exhibited before the Tribunal as Ex. 7. 7. After analytical discussion of the oral and documentary evidence, the defence taken by the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 driver Bodu Ram, was dis-believed by the Tribunal and it was held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 and consequently, passed the award impugned. 8. At the first instance, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place due to failure of brakes, which should be treated to be an act of God. 8. At the first instance, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place due to failure of brakes, which should be treated to be an act of God. It is further urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 but due to failure of brakes, which was beyond the control of respondent No. 3. 9. I am not impressed with the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellant. On the aforesaid point, issue No. 1 was framed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after analytical discussion of the material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the defence with regard to failure of brakes was required to be established by the respondent No. 3 and the appellant but both of them have miserably failed to establish the same. The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons to dis-believe the cause of accident to be failure of brakes, as alleged by the respondent No. 3. The Tribunal has committed no error in arriving at a conclusion that Ex. 7 MTO's report regarding failure of brakes is not admissible in evidence as the MTO who is alleged to have prepared the report, was not examined before the Tribunal. I am in full agreement with the findings of the Tribunal on this point that accident did not occur due to failure of brakes but it did occur because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. 10. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant Shri Bhati, that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards issue No. 2 framed by the Tribunal. On the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was 17 years and according to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, age of father of the deceased was 49 years on the date of the accident, which was calculated on the basis of age disclosed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 during the course of his deposition. At the time of his deposition, Bhanwar Dan, claimant-respondent No. 1 father of the deceased, disclosed his age to be 54 years. The earnings of deceased was calculated to be Rs. 900/- per month as labourer. At the time of his deposition, Bhanwar Dan, claimant-respondent No. 1 father of the deceased, disclosed his age to be 54 years. The earnings of deceased was calculated to be Rs. 900/- per month as labourer. The Tribunal has taken longevity of father of the deceased to be 70 years and, therefore, applied multiplier of 21 years for assessment of dependency. It is true that age of claimant No. 2 Smt. Durga Devi is not disclosed, however, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that, normally, marriages are performed between male and female of equal age and treat the age of mother of the deceased Smt. Durga Devi, same as of father-claimant No. 1. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that assuming for argument sake that the deceased was earning on the date of his death Rs. 900/- per month even then 21 years multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chand & Ors., reported in JT 1996(5) SC 356 . 12. I am of the view that neither the Tribunal nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoners. It can only be a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 17 and his dependents are his parents, age of parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. 13. In the case of Trilok Chandra (supra), the Apex Court emphasised that the multiplier should not exceed 18 years' purchase factor. It is held by the Apex Court in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) that improvement of 18 years is made over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16 years. Aforesaid observation was made by the Apex Court where the Tribunal used multiplier of 24 and High Court raised it to 34 years, showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system In Davies' case. 14. Aforesaid observation was made by the Apex Court where the Tribunal used multiplier of 24 and High Court raised it to 34 years, showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system In Davies' case. 14. It is true that in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere in Special Appeal on different reasons but it is easily deducible that now in view of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, multiplier cannot be more , than 18 years in the present case. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has incorrectly applied 21 years multiplier which ought to have been only 18 years. If the amount of compensation on account of dependency is calculated on the basis of 18 years multiplier, for financial loss on account of dependency of claimant respondents No. 1 and 2, it come to Rs. 1,29,600/-. As regard compensation awarded by the Tribunal amounting to Rs. 10,000 /- due to loss of love and affection, I find it eminently just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the total amount of compensation for which the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled in the present case, comes to Rs. 1,39,600/-, with interest from the date of claim petition i.e. 3.10.1985 at the rate of 12% per annum. 16. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that Rs. 25,000/- were paid to the claimant respondents No. 1 and 2 as interim compensation. In support of his contention, he invited my attention towards an application moved by claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 for payment of interim compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show me any order granting interim compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also failed to demostrate that any interim award was paid to the claimant respondents. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances. I am not satisfied that any interim compensation was paid to the claimant respondents No. 1 and 2.With aforesaid observations, present appeal is partly allowed and the award under appeal is modified accordingly. Now the claimant respondent No. 1 and 2 would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,39,600 /- instead of Rs. 1,61,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 3.10.1985. Now the claimant respondent No. 1 and 2 would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,39,600 /- instead of Rs. 1,61,200/- as awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 3.10.1985. In abundant caution, it is also made clear that if any interim compensation has been paid to the claimant respondents No. 1 and 2, that amount shall be adjusted towards final amount of compensation under the modified award.As no one appeared to oppose the appeal, costs are made easyAppeal Partly allowed. *******