JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey and Rajeev Gupta, JJ. 1. Appellant M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') aggrieved of the award dated 18.2.1992, passed in Claim Case No. 5 of 1979, by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandla. 2. It is not in dispute that deceased Kishan Lal, aged about 40 years, was travelling in stage carriage bus No. CPH 8525 on 21.7.1979, which was driven by the respondent No. 6, during the course of his employment with the appellant. While the bus was going on Raipur-Jabalpur route, it met with an accident and fell down in a 'nala', as a result of which, Kishan Lal received multiple injuries and died instantaneously. He was an income-tax assessee and was a partner of 1/3rd share in the firm of grain merchant. The Tribunal, on the evidence adduced, estimated the dependency at Rs. 600/- per month, yearly Rs. 7,200/-. Applying multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,08,000/-. In that Rs. 5,000/- were added towards consortium. Thus, the total compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,13,000/-. In that deduction of Rs. 20,160/- received from the partnership firm after the death of deceased and 10 per cent of Rs. 84,960/- being towards lump sum payment was made. A further sum of Rs. 7,646/- at the rate of 10 per cent was deducted towards uncertainties of life. The Tribunal further deducted a sum of Rs. 5,040/- as the wife of the deceased was inducted as a partner in the firm. Thus, after giving a deduction of Rs. 44,182/-, the legal representatives were allowed compensation of Rs. 68,818 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 14.10.1979. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed cross-objections for the enhancement of compensation. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the cross-objections deserve to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinafter. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the cross-objections deserve to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinafter. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. On the other hand, the finding of the Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence, clearly shows that the accident occurred due to driving of the vehicle in high speed, as a result of which the vehicle did not remain in control of the driver. Besides, as the bus fell down in the 'nala', the negligence is apparent, the accident speaks for itself and doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is attracted. 6. The compensation, in our opinion, on the estimation of the dependency, taking multiplicand of Rs. 7,200/- per year and working out compensation by applying multiplier of 15 is proper. However, the deductions of the sums made by the Tribunal is illegal. It is well settled that multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Deduction towards lump sum payment or uncertainties of life cannot be made [See General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and a decision of this Court in Fizabai v. Nemichand 1994 ACJ 249 (MP)]. The other deduction in respect of Rs. 23,000/- from the partnership firm share of the deceased and the deduction of Rs. 5,040/- as the wife of the deceased was inducted as a partner, could not have been made, for the simple reason that the amount of Rs. 23,000 was also available to the deceased as his share of profit, if he would have been alive. Deduction of Rs. 5,040/- due to induction of the wife in the partnership firm is also illegal as a tortfeasor cannot be given the benefit of this amount which comes into the hands of the respondents on account of the death of a near and dear. This Court considered the question in case of compassionate appointment to one of the legal representatives of the deceased due to the death caused in motor accident and taken the view that such deduction cannot be made. [See Chandrika Bai Sahu v. Mohd. Ashique 1998 ACJ 780 (MP)]. Therefore, respondents/legal representatives would be entitled to full amount of Rs. 1,13,000, besides Rs. [See Chandrika Bai Sahu v. Mohd. Ashique 1998 ACJ 780 (MP)]. Therefore, respondents/legal representatives would be entitled to full amount of Rs. 1,13,000, besides Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,15,000/- to which the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would be entitled. The case remained pending before the Tribunal since 1979, which ultimately was decided in the year 1992. The appeal filed in the year 1992 came for its hearing in July, 1997. Hence, we are of the opinion that it would be unjust to burden the appellant with payment of interest for total period of 18 years. [See Oriental Fire & General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Singh 1995 ACJ 26 (MP)]. Therefore, we direct that respondents/claimants would be entitled to interest for the total period of 12 years only. The appellant Corporation is directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of 2 months from the date of supply of certified copy, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit, the amount shall be disbursed keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 673 (SC). In the result the appeal is dismissed accordingly. The award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted, as indicated hereinabove. The appellant Corporation shall pay the cost of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 750/-, if pre-certified.