JUDGMENT 1. - The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 13.10.99 in MACT case No. 846/88 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota whereby the claim application has been dismissed. 2. The claimant Nos. 1 & 2, parents of the deceased, and Nos. 3 to 5, brothers of the deceased, have filed the claim application under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation because of death of Roop Chand s/o Lodu Lal. The deceased Roop Chand had died because of accident on the night of 18/19.12.1987, while he was driving a jeep RJO-452 had met with the accident with tractor No. RRO-2753 owned by Kalyan Singh being driven by Duli Chand. The deceased had suffered injured and died because of the injuries. The deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident. The claimants filed the claim application claiming compensation Rs. 10,50,000/-. The respondents 1 & 2 did not contest the case and were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company pleaded that the tractor was not insured with it. 3. The necessary issues were framed including in regard to accident, causing of accident, negligence. The evidence was produced and as many as 12 documents were exhibited including FIR, charge sheet, site plan, seizure of tractor, seizure of jeep, mechanical report, Post-mortem Report, Panchnama, driving licence, registration of tractor etc. 4. For deciding the issues No. 1, the Tribunal had held that as no eye witness nor had been examined, thus there was no evidence, whatsoever to prove that the accident had been because of negligence of respondent No. 1. The issue Nos. 2 & 4 were not pressed. In regard to Issue No. 3 the Tribunal had held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 25,000/- only under the clause of No Fault Liability. The claim application was dismissed. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there can be circumstances when there is no eye-witness available or even if there is any eye witness, such witness is not under the control of claimants as they may not like to come to court for deposing about the accident and in such circumstances the principles of `res ipsa loquitur' as annunciated is applicable. For that purpose relies on a judgment in case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and others v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. For that purpose relies on a judgment in case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and others v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 1977 SC 1735 , wherein it was held that normally it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it; the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of `res ipsa-loquitur'. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are case in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that accident might most probably had happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle, it must be shown that the vehicle was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care. On the circumstances of the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi it was held that even though there is no direct evidence available, the Tribunal was justified in applying the doctrine and that it was for the opponents to prove that the accident did not taken place due to their negligence. 6. Counsel for appellants also relied on the judgments of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Padmabai & Ors. v. M.P., State Road Transport & Anr., 1999 (II) ACC 281 (DB) , wherein it was held that deceased sustained injuries and died, under such circumstances, the burden shifted on respondents to prove that the bus driver was not responsible for accident. Respondent discharged their burden by examining the driver of offending vehicle. v. M.P., State Road Transport & Anr., 1999 (II) ACC 281 (DB) , wherein it was held that deceased sustained injuries and died, under such circumstances, the burden shifted on respondents to prove that the bus driver was not responsible for accident. Respondent discharged their burden by examining the driver of offending vehicle. It was observed as under : "We considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides and perused the record. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that on basis of the maxim res ipsa loquitur, it must be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. is not acceptable. Normally, the burden of proving the negligence is on the claimants but in some cases it is very difficult for them to prove it as cause of accident is not known to them, it is solely within the knowledge of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the maxim `res ipsa loquitur,' which means that the accident tells its own story and under such circumstances, on proving that the deceased died as a result of motor accident, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that the accident did not happen due to his own negligence." 7. So far the principle of res-ipsa-loquitur is concerned, there is no dispute that it is settled principle of law that it is to be made applicable on the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. The record of the trial court has been summoned and perused. The claimants examined PW. 1 Babu Lal, who had certified about the age of the deceased and income of the deceased and stated that the accident had been caused because of negligence of Duli Chand, the driver of tractor. Apart from the statements, the claimants had exhibited the site-plan. From the perusal of site plan it is clear that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver of tractor. As such the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 9. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the circumstances when all the persons had died in the accident, there cannot be any possibility of eye-witness. The matter can only be explained by tractor driver, but he had not been produced before the Tribunal. 10. As such the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. 9. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the circumstances when all the persons had died in the accident, there cannot be any possibility of eye-witness. The matter can only be explained by tractor driver, but he had not been produced before the Tribunal. 10. From the above evidence, it has come on record that the deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 850/- per month. The claim application was filed by Lodu Lal & Kastoori Bai parents of deceased) aged 60 & 55 years and Babu Lal, Ram Kishan & Jagdish (brothers of deceased) aged 28, 19 and 16 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was unmarried. Even though there is no evidence on record that Babu Lal, Ram Kishan or Jagdish were dependent on deceased, but in any case the parents are entitled to compensation. The deceased would have helped the parents at the most 5 to 10 years and in all probabilities he would have married and look after his own family as well. The parents could have benefited at least 5 to 10 years. 11. The other claimants-appellants Babu Lal, Ramkishan and Jagdish are not entitled to any compensation because of dependency. 12. The income of the deceased was Rs. 850/-. After deducting Rs. 300/- for expenses of deceased himself the dependency is fixed at Rs. 550/- and the yearly dependency is fixed at Rs. 6600/-. The maximum multiplier which can be applied cannot be more than 8 years. The compensation as payable to parents is fixed at Rs. 52,800/- along with cremation expenses Rs. 3,000/- and for the loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/-. As such the total compensation payable is Rs. 65,800/- to claimants parents Lodu Lal sic Nathu Lal and Kastroori Bai w/o Lodu Lal, who are now 72 and 67 years old. 13. The whole of the compensation shall be paid with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, which was prevailing in the year 1988, from the date of filing the claim application till realisation. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted. The amount of compensation shall be paid to claimant Lodu Lal and Kastoor Bai in equal share. In case of death of any claimant, the whole of the amount of compensation shall be paid to remaining claimant. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted. The amount of compensation shall be paid to claimant Lodu Lal and Kastoor Bai in equal share. In case of death of any claimant, the whole of the amount of compensation shall be paid to remaining claimant. 14. The amount of compensation shall be paid within two months from the date of this order. 15. With the above observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.Misc. Appeal disposed of. *******