JUDGMENT MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—This appeal at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh is against award dated 22.3.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter called the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition of Respondents-claimants was allowed and an amount of Rs. 2,19,000/- was awarded as compensation against the appellants and Respondent No. 4. The Respondents-claimants are Class I heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shri Dev Parkash Bhardwaj who was crushed to death on 3,8.1989 at about 10.00 P.M. near Military Police Checkpost at Kingal, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu by truck No, HPA 7622, owned by appellant No. 1 and driven by Respondent No. 4. At the time of accident deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj was serving as Assistant Field Officer (Technical) in the office of Area Organiser, Mahasu Area Camp Kumarsain, District Shimla. 2. In reply to the cause of accident, as given in the claim petition, that while reversing his truck Respondent No. 4 had driven rashly and negligently without taking reasonable care and crushed deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj to death, the appellants have taken the defence that Respondent No. 4 was not on official duty at the relevant time, as such, they were not vicariously liable to pay compensation to the Respondents-claimants. However, they have not denied the accident and consequent death of Dev Parkash Bhardwaj. Further, they have denied that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 4. It appears from the record of the Tribunal that Respondent No. 4, the driver of the vehicle did not file any reply to the claim petition. He was duly served in the claim petition in pursuance to which he had appeared in person on 22.5.1990 but thereafter neither he appeared in person nor he was represented by any Counsel. 3. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and/ or negligent driving of the vehicle by Respondent No. 3 ? 2. Whether Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation as Respondent No. 3 was not on official duty at the time of accident ? 3. Whether the claimant/petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? 4. Relief. 4. 2. Whether Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation as Respondent No. 3 was not on official duty at the time of accident ? 3. Whether the claimant/petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? 4. Relief. 4. In order to prove their case the Respondent-claimant Sandeep Bhardwaj appeared as PW-1 and produced Shekhar Chand Sharma (PW-2) Circle Organiser, Kumarsen, Office of Area Organiser, SSB Kumarsen; Hoshiar Singh (PW-3) M.H.C. Police Station Kumarsen and eye-witness Satish Chand Sharma (PW-4). The appellants produced only H.C. Verma (RW-1) the then Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health, Sub-Division Ani, District Kullu. On the basis of evidence of eye-witness Satish Chand Sharma PW-4, which was corroborated by FIR No. 73/89 dated 4.8.1989 under Sections 279, 337and304-A, I.PC. lodged in Police Station Kumarsen, a copy whereof is on record as Ex. PB, which is not rebutted by the appellants, the findings on Issue No. 1 were returned in favour of the Respondents-claimants that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HPA 7622 by its driver-Respondent No. 4 Issue No. 2 was also decided against the appellants by holding that being owner of truck No. HPA 7622 and the employer of its driver-Respondent No. 4 they are vicariously liable for his rash and negligent driving as a I result of which the accident had taken place in which Dev Parkash Bhardwaj was crushed to death. The stand of the appellants that Respondent No. 4 was not on official duty at the relevant time was rejected. On Issue No. 3, the Tribunal has determined the multiplicand at Rs. 1,200/- per month or Rs. 14,400/- per year, to which multiplier of 15 was applied and the compensation amount was arrived at Rs. 2,16,000/-, to which Rs. 3,000/- were added as conventional amount and total amount of compensation was worked out to be Rs. 2,19,000/-. So far the interest is i concerned, the Tribunal had ordered that if the compensation amount was not deposited within 30 days from the date of award the appellants would [ be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the institution • of the claim-petition i.e. 26.8.1989 til! the date of payment. 5. We have learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. the date of payment. 5. We have learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Advocate-Genera! appearing for the appellant has not seriously disputed the findings of the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2. His only submission is that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side, as a result of which the quantum of compensation awarded to Respondents-claimants is also on the higher side and cannot be termed as just and reasonable. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-claimants, who have filed their cross-objections and prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount, has urged that the multiplier is on the lower side and the multiplicand has not been calculated correctly. Both of them have cited case law in support of their respective contentions, to which we will refer to in later part of our judgment, 6. No doubt the Respondents-claimants had stated in the claim-petition that the salary of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj was Rs. 3,000/- per month but Respondent-claimant Sandeep Bhardwaj PW-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that the salary of his father was Rs. 2,400/- per month, I which statement has been corroborated by last pay certificate.Ext. PA produced land proved by Sekhar Chand Sharma PW-2. Therefore, we find that-the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj as Rs. 2,400/- per month but by applying the unit system the multiplicand has been wrongly determined at Rs. 1,200/- per month in view of the facts on record that the wife of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj had also died in an another accident and only his mother besides two minor children were his dependants. Accordingly, the family of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj consisted of two adults including him and two minor children and the total units would be six i.e. two units each for adults and one unit each for minors, whereas, the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration eight units. On the basis of total monthly income as Rs. 2,400/- and the total units as six, the personal expenditure of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj comes to Rs. 800/- and the total value of dependency would be Rs. 1,600/-, whereas the Tribunal has worked out Rs. 600/- as personal expenditure of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj and Rs. 1,800/- as total value of dependency, which findings are not sustainable. 2,400/- and the total units as six, the personal expenditure of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj comes to Rs. 800/- and the total value of dependency would be Rs. 1,600/-, whereas the Tribunal has worked out Rs. 600/- as personal expenditure of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj and Rs. 1,800/- as total value of dependency, which findings are not sustainable. On the other hand, looking to the age of deceased Dev Parkash Bhardwaj as 44 years 3 months and 1 week and other relevant factors on record, the multiplier of 15 is definitely on the higher side. In our opinion, the fair and just multiplier is 11. Therefore, taking the multiplicand as Rs. 1,600/- per month and Rs. 19,200/- per year and the multiplier as 11 the total compensation works out to Rs. 2,14,200/- by adding Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,19,000/- including Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount. Therefore, in view of the difference of Rs. 5,000/- in the amount of compensation calculated by us and the amount of compensation awarded 7. Learned Advocate-General has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susmma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, to point out that in that case the deceased was 39 years of age and the multiplier of 12 was found just and reasonable by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. Learned Advocate-General has also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 SCC 362, in which the learned Judges of .the Supreme Court have emphasised that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor, which is the improvement from earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. However, the learned Judges refused to interfere in the quantum of compensation holding that though the multiplier used was excessive but the multiplicand used was low. We have also adopted this course, as discussed hereinabove. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-claimants has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in HP. However, the learned Judges refused to interfere in the quantum of compensation holding that though the multiplier used was excessive but the multiplicand used was low. We have also adopted this course, as discussed hereinabove. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-claimants has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in HP. Road Transport Corporation v. Punni Devi and others, 1993 ACJ 998, A Single Bench judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Rajendra Kumar v. Suman Lata Chaturvedi and others, 1993 ACJ 1185, and also of the Supreme Court in S. Chandra v. Pallavan Transport Corporation, (1994) 2 SCC 189, to urge that multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side and also prayed for higher multiplier We find that these judgments are on the facts of cases which were before the learned Judges of the said High Courts and the Supreme Court and these cannot be cited as precedents in view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (supra). 9. The result of above discussion is that though we find that the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal is excessive, and reasonable and just multiplier is 11, and the multiplicand as Rs. 1,200 arrived at by the Tribunal is wrong and the correct multiplicand is Rs. 1,600 yet we have not interfered in view of the nominal difference between the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award and arrived at by us by applying the multiplier of 11 to the multiplicand of Rs. 1,600 per month and Rs. 19,200 per year. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the Respondents-claimants that there is no justification for granting interest only if the appellants failed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the award, as has been ordered by the Tribunal. Therefore, we modify the award in this regard and direct that the Respondents-claimants will be given interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim-petition He. 26.8.1980 to the date of payment. In the result, the cross-objections are partly allowed. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.