JUDGMENT 1. - This is a misc. appeal against the award passed by the learned Judge, MACT Court, Bhilwara dated 20-4-1992. A cross objection has also been filed by the successors of Late Shri Shyam Sunder Kogta. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shyam Sunder was travelling by Roadways bus on 2-4-85 from Bhilwara to Gangapur. Driver of the bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and near Ghathila farm the bus overturned on the right side as a result Shyam Sunder died on the spot. The road was quite wide but the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and took the bus towards right side of the road. He lost the control over the steering and hit the railing of the bridge and overturned. Shyam Sunder was of 27 years of age. He was proprietor of a petrol pump from where he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per annum. He was also the sole proprietor of M/s. Shyam Sunder Trading Corporation where he used to deal in colours and paints and used to earn nearly Rs. 9,000/- per annum. He contributed Rs. 30,000/- out of his income towards claimants and he had been alive for 43 years more he should have contributed Rs. 13,00,000/-. The claimants filed a claim for Rs. 8,00,000/- only and claimed a sum of Rs. 3,000/'- on account of funeral expenses as well as transportation to carry the dead body of the deceased from Gangapur to Bhilwara. Thus the total claim of Rs. 8,03,000/- was claimed. The Roadways admitted in its reply the factum of death of the deceased. At the same time it was contended that Shyam Sunder was responsible for his own death. It was submitted that the bus was being driven with a normal speed and as soon as the bus entered the bridge a truck with a very high speed came from front side and the driver of the bus in order to avoid major accident took the bus on the right side but the bus was overturned and the accident was taken place. It was further submitted that the claim was exaggerated and even after the death of Shyam Sunder the income of petrol pump had not decreased. Therefore, it was contended that legal representatives of Shyam Sunder had not sustained any pecuniary loss. It was further submitted that the claim was exaggerated and even after the death of Shyam Sunder the income of petrol pump had not decreased. Therefore, it was contended that legal representatives of Shyam Sunder had not sustained any pecuniary loss. Learned Trial Judge framed three issues as follows:- " 1- vk;k cl vkj vkj th 6024 dk M~kbZoj cl dks xQyr ;k ykijokgh esa pyk jgk Fkk ftlls cl iqfy;k esa mrjdj iyVh [kk x;h vkSj blh dkj.k e`rd ';kelqUnj dh ?kVukLFky ij mDr nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks xbZ\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k e`rd ';kelqUnj dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gksus ls foi{kh ls 8]03]000@& dh {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- nknjlh D;k gksxh\ " 3. Learned trial Court passed an award of Rs. 3,45,000/- with an interest @ 12% w.e.f. 16-5-1995. It is against this award that the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. The legal representatives of Shyam Sunder filed cross-objection submitting that the Tribunal has erred in law in determining the amount of Rs. 1000/- per month under the head of dependency and that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased would remain alive for 30 years and, therefore, has applied a wrong multiplier. The learned Tribunal has also committed an error by allowing interest @ 12% while it should be 18%. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the learned Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of contributory negligence. He has also submitted that there was no eye-witness of the accident. He submitted that a truck was coming from the opposite direction and in order to save a major accident the happening took place. He submitted that deceased was himself responsible for his death. He, therefore, submitted that the Roadways could not be held liable for the accident. 7. I have gone through the whole evidence on record. AW-2 Gopal Lal, ASI, has stated that he went to the accident site as he was the SHO of P.S. Gangapur on 2-4-85. He found that roadways bus No. RRG-6024 had fallen down and the dead body of Shyam Sunder was lying in the bus. The panchayatnama was prepared by him. I have gone through the whole evidence on record. AW-2 Gopal Lal, ASI, has stated that he went to the accident site as he was the SHO of P.S. Gangapur on 2-4-85. He found that roadways bus No. RRG-6024 had fallen down and the dead body of Shyam Sunder was lying in the bus. The panchayatnama was prepared by him. The case of the appellants was that the head of Shyam Sunder was out of the window when he was travelling in the bus but it appears that this defence of the roadways is flimsy because the Investigating Officer, AW-2 Gopal Lal has stated that no such evidence came during the investigation. He further stated that it was also wrong that a truck was coming from opposite direction and in order to save a major accident the driver turned the bus which accidently fell in a steep ditch. Thus the defence of the roadways was false. The appellants (Roadways) did not produce any evidence before the learned Tribunal. It is a case in which maxim of RES IPSA LOQUITUR applies, in the facts and circumstances when the accident itself took place and there is evidence to the effect that no truck was coming from the opposite direction so that the driver in order to avoid a major accident might have become careful, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal rightly decided issue No. 1 against the roadways. 8. The next question before me is whether the respondents were entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,03,000/- as they claimed before the Tribunal? 9. The case of the respondents was that a sum of Rs. 3000/- has not been allowed as expenses for bringing the dead body of Shyam Sunder from Gangapur to Bhilwara as well as his funeral expenses. I have read the evidence of AW-1 Hagamilal. He is the father of deceased. He has not stated even a single word about the expenditure made on that account, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in disallowing this amount. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the multiplier used by the learned lower Court was not correct and the amount of award is excessive. He submitted that the deceased had income of Rs. 40,000/- per year and out of which he used to give Rs. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the multiplier used by the learned lower Court was not correct and the amount of award is excessive. He submitted that the deceased had income of Rs. 40,000/- per year and out of which he used to give Rs. 30,000/-to the respondents and if he would remain alive for 43 years he would have earned Rs. 13,00,000/- out of which he would have contributed Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the family. According to AW-1 Hagamilal, Shyam Sunder was the proprietor of the petrol pump where he used to sell diesel arid lubricating oil. He was also dealer of paints having a shop named as Shyam Trading Corporation from which shop he used to earn Rs. 1500/- per month while from the petrol pump he used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month. Copies of the income-tax returns which are Exs. 1 and 2 have been submitted. They relate to the year 1984. Some other documents about petrol pump have also been exhibited in his statement. Ex. 3 to Ex. 10 show the commission which Shyam Sunder used to get as dealer from the Indian Oil. Needless to say that so far as the amount of commission is concerned, there is no evidence that it has reduced. The witness has also stated that Shyam Sunder used to earn Rs. 1000/- from oil lubricants and used to give Rs. 3500/ per month to the joint family as his wife and son were living jointly with the witness. He has stated that the petrol pump was closed for sometime after the death of Shyam Sunder. He also stated that the petrol pump was to be transferred in the name of the wife of Shyam Sunder. The witness was a Government servant and he stated that he took retirement in order to take care of the family and the income from the shop has lessened because of the death of Shyam Sunder. But the witness has admitted in his cross-examination that so far as commission on oil and lubricants is concerned, it has not reduced because of the death of Shyam Sunder. According to him, income of Shyam Sunder from petrol pump was Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 1500/- from Shyam Trading Corporation and Rs. 1000/-from lubricants. From his statement I find that he has exaggerated the income. According to him, income of Shyam Sunder from petrol pump was Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 1500/- from Shyam Trading Corporation and Rs. 1000/-from lubricants. From his statement I find that he has exaggerated the income. From the profit and loss account for the year 1983-84 which relate to Shyam Trading Corporation a very meagre amount of profit amounting to not more than Rs. 8000/-per year has been shown. From the petrol pump Rs. 20,000/- was earned per year but there is no proof that there was some extra income from selling lubricants. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that the income of deceased Shyam Sunder was Rs. 30,000/- per year. Shyam Sunder has left a young widow, his father and two children. The trial Court was right in holding that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were solely dependent on Shyam Sunder. Learned trial Court held that Shyam Sunder contributed Rs. 1000/- per month towards the family and applied multiplier of 30 in order to arrive to the amount determined as claim. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that multiplier of 30 was not correct. I am of the view that in the instant case it was right as the deceased was of about 27 years and would have remained alive for at least 30 years. Multiplier method is expected to be the method of ensuring a just compensation which will make uniformity and departure from this can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents cross objectors submitted that the transportation charges of the dead body as well as funeral charges should have also been 1 allowed and that the learned Tribunal was not correct in coming to the just and proper compensation. My attention was drawn to Gyan Prakash Bhargava v. Baboo Lal, 1985 Acc CJ 661 , in which it was observed that when even no bills or vouchers were produced but the f fact was that claimant was injured and was under treatment for 21/2 years, compensation could be granted without production of concrete , evidence in form of bills, vouchers etc. This observation does not apply to the present case because here the case of the claimants was that they brought the dead body from Gangapur to Bhilwara but there is no iota of evidence as to how much amount was spent. This observation does not apply to the present case because here the case of the claimants was that they brought the dead body from Gangapur to Bhilwara but there is no iota of evidence as to how much amount was spent. There is no evidence as to how much amount was spent on funeral expenses. The Court is left to probe into darkness. In my view the learned Tribunal was itself liberal in granting the compensation to the respondents. It has also been submitted that the rate of interest should be increased to 18%. The rate of interest is generally in such cases 12% and in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 Acc CJ 1: ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ) interest @ 12% was allowed from the date of the petition. Learned Tribunal has allowed this rate of interest from the date of petition. In my view the award does not call for any interference. 12. In the result, the instant misc. appeal and cross-objection are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******