BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Acci-dents Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in M. A. C. No. 77 of 1999 dated 19. 1. 2000. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, Dr. Shyamlal Borkar was posted as Block Medical Officer, Primary health Centre, Birasa (Balaghat ). With a view to attend meeting at Balaghat and bring some medicines from there, he left birasa on 22. 8. 1997 at 11 a. m. along with nurses Manju Rahangdale and Sushila asole, ward boy Janki Prasad and waterman Shyam Ratan Vinayak. On the way, tannod river was in spate; therefore, they waited till 9. 30 p. m. for it to abate. Thereafter, the jeep was taken across. However, it was washed away resulting in the death of Dr. Shyamlal Borkar, nurses Manju rahangdale and Sushila Asole. Accordingly, claim petitions were filed for compensation by legal heirs of Dr. Shyamlal borkar and nurse Manju Rahangdale, disposed of by the impugned award. ( 3 ) OBVIOUSLY, the allegation of claimants is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Janki Prasad, otherwise it would not have happened. Dr. Shyamlal Borkar was going to Balaghat along with the staff to attend the important meeting and bring some medicines. He was the sole earning member of the family and due to his death, the family is in financial crisis. He was getting salary of Rs. 9,600 per month. He was 45 years old at the time of accident. Compensation of Rs. 19,38,000 (rupees nineteen lakh thirty-eight thousand) is claimed. Driver Janki Prasad alleges that the accident was caused by Dr. Shyamlal borkar who had tried to cross the flooded bridge when he and 3 others were sitting in the jeep. Due to flood, attempt to cross the river failed and the jeep was drowned in the river. Since, he was not driving the jeep, false case was registered against him. Other respondents submit that the accident took place because Dr. Shyamlal Borkar compelled the driver to cross the bridge. Therefore, he being negligent, the claim petition of his legal heirs was liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the claims Tribunal framed common issues in the two petitions. Other respondents submit that the accident took place because Dr. Shyamlal Borkar compelled the driver to cross the bridge. Therefore, he being negligent, the claim petition of his legal heirs was liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the claims Tribunal framed common issues in the two petitions. However, the finding recorded in the claim petition of appellant is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep in which Dr. Shyamlal Borkar and nurse Manju rahangdale died. Dr. Shyamlal Borkar was receiving annual salary of Rs. 1,26,000 (rupees one lakh twenty-six thousand ). There is no award for medical treatment, however, total compensation of Rs. 8,22,000 (rupees eight lakh twenty-two thousand) has been assessed as per para 17 of the award. The claimants have not been awarded the compensation, in view of the finding that the accident took place due to negligence of dr. Shyamlal Borkar for having compelled janki Prasad to drive the jeep through the flooded bridge. This award is the subject matter of challenge through this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for appellants contends that non-award of compensation to legal heirs of Dr. Shyamlal Borkar, is result of improper analysis and appreciation of evidence, otherwise case for award of compensation is clearly made out. The submission is that Janki prasad was driving the jeep from Birasa and tribunal has rightly concluded that there could be no reason for Dr. Shyamlal borkar to take charge of the jeep and drive it through the flooded bridge. Therefore, next facet of the case is whether Dr. Shyamlal borkar compelled Janki Prasad to drive through the bridge. There is no evidence to justify this allegation. When Dr. Shyamlal borkar could wait for the flood to abate for 8 hours, there could be no reason for him to compel Janki Prasad to drive through the flooded bridge. Janki Prasad and Shyam ratan have deposed against Dr. Shyamlal borkar because Dr. Shyamlal Borkar is no more and they gained liberty to speak against him and escape departmental action against them. The police could register a case under section 304-A, Indian Penal code against Dr. Janki Prasad and Shyam ratan have deposed against Dr. Shyamlal borkar because Dr. Shyamlal Borkar is no more and they gained liberty to speak against him and escape departmental action against them. The police could register a case under section 304-A, Indian Penal code against Dr. Shyamlal Borkar, in case their investigation revealed that he was at driver's seat at the time of occurrence of the accident, but it was registered against janki Prasad obviously as a result of investigation that the police may have carried out on the taking place of the accident. Further, he did not lodge any report with the department regarding the incident and conduct of Dr. Shyamlal Borkar, compelling him to drive the jeep which means what he speaks is by way of an afterthought. The case of other respondents is also that the jeep was being driven by janki Prasad who was compelled to drive through the flooded bridge by Dr. Shyamlal Borkar. ( 6 ) MR. S. K. Seth, Additional Advocate general, submits that there is no clear evidence pointing out that Dr. Shyamlal Borkar was moving to Balaghat on official duty along with the staff and that he knew driving and evidence also suggests that he had been driving the jeep oftentimes and at the relevant time. Further, assuming that janki Prasad was driving the jeep, he could not have attempted to cross through the flooded bridge without insistence from Dr. Shyamlal Borkar. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly sustainable having roots in evidence recorded in the case. Consequently, legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to compensation. ( 7 ) GIVING consideration to the matter, the conclusion of Claims Tribunal that Dr. Shyamlal Borkar was going to Balaghat on official duty along with the staff is sustainable, since there is no positive evidence to demolish this assertion. ( 8 ) THE next question is whether Dr. Shyamlal Borkar compelled the driver janki Prasad to drive through the flooded bridge at the relevant time. We answer this question in the negative. Janki Prasad is the holder of driving licence. Often times he was asked to drive the jeep in the absence of the driver, since he is otherwise a ward boy. He goes to take the nurses, and carries all the occupants to the river side which was found in spate. We answer this question in the negative. Janki Prasad is the holder of driving licence. Often times he was asked to drive the jeep in the absence of the driver, since he is otherwise a ward boy. He goes to take the nurses, and carries all the occupants to the river side which was found in spate. They reached the spot around 1 p. m. waited for the river to abate up to 9. 30 p. m. and crossed it. In case Dr. Shyamlal Borkar insisted, he could ask Janki Prasad to take the jeep through the flooded bridge during these eight hours' wait, but he did not do so. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that dr. Shyamlal Borkar insisted to take the jeep through the flooded bridge at the time of accident. Statement of Janki Prasad to the contrary cannot be believed, because his case is that Dr. Shyamlal Borkar drove the jeep through the flooded bridge. Same is the statement of Shyam Ratan. Otherwise the evidence demonstrates that Janki prasad drove the jeep through the flooded bridge. There is no complaint to the department by Janki Prasad or Shyam Ratan that the accident occurred when the jeep was being driven through the flooded bridge by dr. Shyamlal Borkar or Janki Prasad was compelled to drive it. Police investigation does not reveal driving of the jeep by Dr. Shyamlal Borkar. Conclusion is irresistible that the jeep was driven by Janki Prasad through the flooded bridge on his own and dr. Shyamlal Borkar had not compelled him to do so. Consequently, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by Janki Prasad, therefore, finding to the contrary recorded by the Claims tribunal is set aside. ( 9 ) THE next question is determination of compensation for death of Dr. Shyamlal borkar. At the time of accident, he was 45 years old. As per salary certificate Exh. PVII, he was drawing rs. 1,26,066 (rupees one lakh twenty-six thousand and sixtysix) per annum. After making deduction of '/3rd towards personal expenditure, annual dependency comes to Rs. 84,044 (rupees eighty-four thousand and forty-four only ). Looking to the age of Manorama Borkar (38), the appropriate multiplier in this case should be 15, thus, compensation works out to Rs. 12,60,660 (rupees twelve lakh sixty thousand six hundred and sixty) plus rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to wife, rs. 84,044 (rupees eighty-four thousand and forty-four only ). Looking to the age of Manorama Borkar (38), the appropriate multiplier in this case should be 15, thus, compensation works out to Rs. 12,60,660 (rupees twelve lakh sixty thousand six hundred and sixty) plus rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to wife, rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 2,500 for loss to estate in the absence of evidence as to the actual savings and rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed. Award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 77 of 1998 is set aside. Claimants are entitled to compensation of rs. 12,77,160 (rupees twelve lakh seventy-seven thousand one hundred and sixty) carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, to be made within three months. The compensation shall be payable as under: (1) Manorama Borkar (wife) 25 per cent (2) Sonal (daughter) 25 per cent (3) Sipra (daughter) 25 per cent (4) Mranal (daughter) 25 per cent the amount of compensation shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal which shall invest the same in the names of the claimants in the aforesaid ratio, in F. D. R. with nationalized bank of the place where they live for a period of 3 years in the first instance, in the case of Manorama Borkar, sonal, Sipra, while it shall be for period of attaining majority in the case of Mranal. Manorama Borkar may be paid interest on these deposits on demand for being spent on the welfare and education of the family members. In case of necessity like building of house, marriage of daughter (s), special request may be made to the Claims Tribunal for release of the amount of share of manorama Borkar or the daughter (s) intended to be married. Costs of the appeal be borne by the parties. Appeal allowed. .