JUDGMENT Appellants No.1 to 5 are the widow, son and daughter of Nanhesing who died in an automobile accident on 2.5.1991. Appellant No.6 is his posthumous child. They have claimed Rs. 3,70,000/- as compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. MPZ 5821 belonging to the Forest Department of the M.P. Government which was driven by respondent No. 1 Narendra. Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Betul found that Nanhesinghdied in an accident with truck No. MPZ 5821 which was being driven by respondent No.1 Narendra. But holding that the claimants had not proved that this accident was a result of the rash and negligent driving of this truck, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- alone was awarded towards 'no fault' libaility under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. To this was added Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 9,700/- as funeral expenses. The total amount awarded was Rs. 44,700/-. The Tribunal further held that in case rashness and negligence were to be taken as proved, then in that case, making a deduction of 1/3rd amount from his salary of Rs. 2,090/- p.m. and taking a multiplier of 8, the compensation would be Rs. 1,34,000/-. The award has been challenged in this appeal on the ground that in the circumstances of the case negligence on the part of the driver ought to have been inferred. It is further urged that a multiplier of 15 ought to have been taken 'looking to the age of the deceased and that the Tribunal was wrong in making a deduction of 1/3rd from his salary towards personal expenses. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award. It was argued that it was rightly held that rashness or negligence was not proved. We have scrutinized the record of the case and have gone through the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. It was not disputed before ~s that respondent No. 1 Narendra is an employee of the Forest Department. At the time of the accident he was a conductor-cleaner on Forest Department Truck No. MPZ 5821. Claimants have adduced evidence to the effect that on the fateful day, respondent No.2 had gone as a conductor on this truck on which the deceased was a driver. At the time of the accident he was a conductor-cleaner on Forest Department Truck No. MPZ 5821. Claimants have adduced evidence to the effect that on the fateful day, respondent No.2 had gone as a conductor on this truck on which the deceased was a driver. The deceased had gone on duty on this truck to village Panchchi to fetch bamboos from the forest. This truck was later brought back to Betul by respondent No. 1 Narendra Singh (Paragraph 3 - witness No.3 for the applicant). The body of Nanhesingh was found lying on the road near village Panchchi a bicycle lying close by in a badly damaged condition. The Trihmal concluded from the evidence on record that Nanhesingh was crushed under this truck No. MPZ 5821 while respondent No. I Narendra Singh was driving it. This finding is not under challenge before us. Coming to the question of rashness and negligence it is very significant that no attempt was made by the respondents to explain the circumstances under which the accident had occurred, Respondent No. I was an employee of the Forest Department. He was the best person to depose about the accident. He could have been examined by the State to explain the circumstances under which he drove back this truck without Nanhesingh. But he scrupulously avoided the' witness-box. The accident occurred on a Forest road, and in the absence of any explanation by respondent No.-l it can safely be inferred that Nanhesingh was run over by this vehicle on account of his negligent driving. Nanhesingh was admittedly about 42 years old and was getting Rs. 2,090/- per month as salary. He also got allowances whenever he travelled on duty away from the headquarters. Keeping in mind his future prospects, his income can safely be taken to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. Making a deduction of l/3rd towards personal living expenses the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 2,000/- per month, that is, Rs. 24,000/- per year. Following the guidelines in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Sussama Thomas and Others [ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ] a multiplier of 12 would be appropriate. The compensation thus would come to Rs. 2,88,000/-. To this Rs. 5,000/- should be added for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. The total sum works out to Rs. 2,97,500/-. The compensation thus would come to Rs. 2,88,000/-. To this Rs. 5,000/- should be added for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. The total sum works out to Rs. 2,97,500/-. The appellants would therefore be entitled to get a sum of Rs, 2,97,500/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Respondents are directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant keeping in mind the well settled guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The award of the Tribunal shall be substituted as indicated hereinabove. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if are certified.