JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel :- Dharam Singh was employed as a conductor with the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Government Transport, whose all assets and liabilities have vested in respondent No. 1 as per provisions of Road Transport corporation Act. 1950. On 6.12.1973 he was working as conductor on bus No. HPK-7866. It was on way from Shimla to Kunihar. Jai Singh.was the driver, it met with an accident at a place known as a Sairighat. This accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of respondent No.l Bus went off the road and fell-into a nullah. Number of persons sustained injuries including late Shri Dharam Singh, who died at the spot. Appellants No.l & 2 are the sons and appellant No.3 is his widow. 2. This petition was filed on 3.12.1991 by two of the appellants No.l & 3. where as appellant No.4 was arrayed as a perform respondent in it. It was pleaded that income of the deceased was Rs.800/- per month. Thus a compensation of Rs.3.25.000/- was claimed. While filing claim petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. This petition was contested and resisted on behalf of respondent being time barred. It was further pleaded that even under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 it had to be filed within the period prescribed there under. As such there was not justification made out for condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. It was denied that accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver; as such claim was liable to be dismissed. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant was also resisted. 5. Learned Tribunal below framed the following issues and finally came to the conclusion that only a sum of Rs.25.000/- is payable to Yoginder Singh together with costs of Rs.5007-. Interest was made payable at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.12..1991 till payment. 1. Whether the petition is within time? ....OPP 2. If issue No.l is decided in the negative, whether there are sufficient grounds for the condonation of the delay? ...OPP 3. Whether the deceased Dharam Singh had died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3 ? ...OPP 4. 1. Whether the petition is within time? ....OPP 2. If issue No.l is decided in the negative, whether there are sufficient grounds for the condonation of the delay? ...OPP 3. Whether the deceased Dharam Singh had died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3 ? ...OPP 4. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and if so from whom? ....OP Parties 5. Relief. 4. Appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Tribunal below and have prayed for enhancement thereof. At the time of hearing of this appeal. Mr. Chandel. learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that claim petition is required to be filed within reasonable time, even if it be assumed that amending Act No.54 of 1994 is retrospectively applicable. Amongst other amendments Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 is deleted in 1994. This provision prior to its deletion prescribed limitation for filing a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. According to him scale and delayed claim need not be adjudicated. 5. Ordinarily this plea should have found favour with the court. However, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter as well as keeping in view the two decisions noted hereinafter, this plea deserves to be rejected. 6. .In a Division bench decision of this Court in Sadh Ram u State of HP. & Aw: connected cases 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 334). it was held that vide Motor Vehicles (amendment) Act No.54 of 1994 sub section (3) of Section 166 of 1988 Act stood deleted. Thus there is no period of limitation for filing petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. It was further held that claim petitions are to be decided in the light of amended Section 166. While allowing the appeal of the claimants, it was held that there being no period of limitation, claim petitions were ordered to be decided on merits by remanding those to the Tribunal below. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel & Ors., 1997 ACJ 938). while considering the matter relating to deletion of Section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 and its effect. Supreme Court of India set this controversy at rest. What was held, was as under: - "1. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel & Ors., 1997 ACJ 938). while considering the matter relating to deletion of Section 166 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 and its effect. Supreme Court of India set this controversy at rest. What was held, was as under: - "1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted by the High Court of entertaining the claim petition in view of the deletion of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been given in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that only an appeal in the High Court under Section 173 of the Act could have been treated as a pending matter in which the benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act could have been given. He also submits that there is a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired and this presented a further difficulty in the present case. 2. In our opinion, these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious. This being so. a matter which was pending in the High Court when this change was brought about should be governed by the affect of omission of sub-section (3) of section 166. In the present case, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is deemed to be an appeal to the High Court under Section 173 of the Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal (Sic. claim application), the benefit of omission of sub-section (3) of section 166 is granted to the claimants The High Courts order directing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits is sustained on this bass. 3. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly." In the face of the aforesaid decisions, the claim petition should have been filed within a reasonable time urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 is hereby rejected. 8. Now coming to the merits of this appeal. 9. Admittedly deceased as working in Himachal Road Transport Corporation as a conductor even he died on 6.12.1973 as a result of the accident in question. 8. Now coming to the merits of this appeal. 9. Admittedly deceased as working in Himachal Road Transport Corporation as a conductor even he died on 6.12.1973 as a result of the accident in question. It has come in the statement of his widow Smt. Vidya Devi that the persons who were working with him at that point of time have been promoted to the rank of Inspector/Chief Inspector. He used to pay Rs.200/- per month out of Rs.300/-. She has further stated that the conductors were receiving salary of Rs.4.000/- to 5.000 per month. This was probably on the date when her statement was recorded, i.e. 21.9.1992. This is the only evidence there on the file. 10. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this part of the statement of his client has not been challenged in cross examination, therefore, it has to be taken as correct. As such, he has prayed for allowing the claim of Rs.3.25.000/-. as detailed in the claim petition before the Tribunal below. This plea has been seriously contested by Mr. Chandel. who submitted that compensation awarded is enough and does not call for any interference. Thus, according to him even if delay is condoned, claimants are not entitled to any enhancement in the absence of there being any reliable evidence. Therefore, according to him. the appeal merits dismiss. 11. Deceased was admittedly working with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, i.e. respondent No.l. It is a wholly Himachal Pradesh Government owned Corporation. So far salary structure as it prevailed on the date of accident is concerned, it was readily available with the Corporation- We cannot loose site of the fact that after the date of accident, three pay commissions were there in the years 1976. 1986 and 1996. At the time of hearing of this appeal it could not be disputed that the pay scales of the staff of Himachal Road Transport Corporation have been revised on the basis of the recommendations made by these pay commission from time to time. 12. However, what was the initial pay and what would have been the effect of the revision of pay scales on the basis of recommendations of these three pay commissions, there is no evidence. 12. However, what was the initial pay and what would have been the effect of the revision of pay scales on the basis of recommendations of these three pay commissions, there is no evidence. Still we feel that ignoring the entire evidence on record, taking into account the minimum wages and other circumstances, total earning of the deceased can be taken to be at Rs.600/- and deducting Rs.150/- per month on account of his personal expenditure, monthly dependence of the appellants works out to Rs.450/- per month or say Rs.5.400/- per annum. 13. While arriving at this figure, we may point out that in the absence of positive evidence, some element of guess work is always involved as in the present case. We have also examined the desirability of getting additional evidence for determining this case. It would have further delayed the adjudication of this case, particularly when it is one year short of three decades when the accident took place and if the case was remanded back it would not have served any fruitful purpose. Therefore, keeping in view over all circumstances, we have thought it fit to take the monthly earnings at Rs.600/- and out of this amount, dependence of the appellants has been worked out. 14. So far matter relating to multiplier is concerned, keeping in view the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Slate Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilock Chandra & Ors. 1996 (4) SCC 362 as well as age of the deceased, we feel that multiplier of 18 needs to be applied in this case. Thus, the total compensation payable works out to 450 x 12, x 18 = Rs.97.200/-. When a sum of Rs.2.800/- is added to this amount towards conventional damages and funeral expenses, total compensation payable comes to Rs. 1.00.000/-. On this sum interest shall be livable as allowed by the learned Tribunal below, i.e. 12% per annum w.e.f 3.12.1991. the date of filing claim petition to 31.03.2001 and thereafter this amount shall cam interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Interest has been reduced keeping in view the Division Bench decision of this court in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 165 of 1997. Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Bimla Kanwar and others, decided on 19.10.2001. as well as of Supreme Court of India in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. Interest has been reduced keeping in view the Division Bench decision of this court in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 165 of 1997. Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Bimla Kanwar and others, decided on 19.10.2001. as well as of Supreme Court of India in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. & Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 9. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and as a result of it. it is held that appellants are entitled for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1.00.000/- in all inclusive of any compensation allowed to them under no fault liability. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 3.12.1991 till 31.3.2001. and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.4.2001 till the payment of this amount to the appellants. It is further ordered that out of the awarded amount 25% each will be payable to Yoginder Singh and Narinder Singh and remaining 50% will be payable to Smt. Vidya Devi. All the three appellants shall be entitled to proportionate interest on this amount. Any amount paid to/received by any of the appellants and/or deposited in the Registry of this court shall be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation. No costs. -