JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 12.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.C. Misc. Appeal No. 271/91 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed in all 4 appeals by a common judgment and order and set aside the judgment and award passed by - the learned Tribunal. 2. Having carefully gone through the record of the case as well as orders passed by the plaintiff and the learned Single Judge, we are fully satisfied that the learned Single has not committed any error in reversing the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal by allowing all the 4 appeals by a common judgment and order dated 12.8.1996. 3. It is clear from the record of the case as well as the oral and documentary evidence that the accident took place not after the bus driver crossed the railway crossing but it took place before the railway crossing. 4. It is unfortunate that the learned Tribunal observed that the site inspection map which according to it was incomplete, still it preferred to rely upon. There is evidence of three witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants who were actually travelling in jeep when it met with the fatal accident. One of them is Sanwarlmal, who has even lodged FIR. His evidence was not believed by the Tribunal because he has failed to produced injury report as he received superficial injuries. It may be stated that the evidence of the witness examined by the claimants remained unchallenged. In that view of the matter, evidence should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal. 5. Under the circumstances, learned Single Judge was very much right in holding that when there was sufficient evidence led by the claimants then such evidence which has not been challenged in the cross-examination ought to have been accepted because of direct evidence. That brings us to the question of multiplier. Learned Single Judge has applied 18 years multiplier but the total amount of award to the claimants is only of Rs. 60,000/-. Under the principle of no-fault liability also, Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 60,000/- by applying multiplier of 18 years cannot be said to be on higher side. By applying the multiplier of 18 years, learned Single Judge awarded only in all Rs. 60,000/-. Under the principle of no-fault liability also, Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 60,000/- by applying multiplier of 18 years cannot be said to be on higher side. By applying the multiplier of 18 years, learned Single Judge awarded only in all Rs. 45,000/- and by way of loss of dependency and awarded only Rs. 6,000/- and by way of loss of dependency and awarded only Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of affection and mental agony. This could have awarded much more than Rs. 6,000/-. In any case when total amount of Rs. 60,000/- is awarded then we would not like to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of above discussion, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. At this stage, a request is made by Shri B.S. Bhati learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 15,000/- by way of no fault liability, therefore, the said amount be adjusted from the ultimate awarded passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the claimants. The request appears to be genuine, therefore, it is granted. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- which is awarded.by way of interim award shall be adjusted in total amount of Rs. 60,000/-. If appellant has not deposited the rest of the amount then the same shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within 2 months from today with all consequential benefits as awarded by the learned Single Judge. On depositing the said amount in the Tribunal, the same shall be distributed amongst the claimants in proper proportions.Appeal dismissed. *******