JUDGMENT 1. This appeal u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.2004 of the learned single Judge in S B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 816/1994 filed by the claimant respondents against the award dated 27.5.1994 of the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No. 12/1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal, special appeal and the judgment of the learned single Judge impugned therein. 2. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Tonk (for short, 'the Tribunal') has taken monthly dependency of the family of the deceased as Rs 5600/- and the multiplier of 12 has been adopted. The learned Tribunal estimated the age of deceased as 45 years and thus we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned single Judge to adopt the multiplier of 15 in this case. Thus the amount of compensation under the head pecuniary loss has been determined to Rs. 10,08,000/-. 3. The learned Tribunal held the deceased equally negligent in driving his vehicle and to reach to this finding reliance has been placed on the site plan prepared by the police. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its plea that the deceased was equally negligent in driving his vehicle. The document, the site plan, was submitted before the learned Tribunal on 29.4.1994 by the non-claimant appellants. It was neither tendered nor proved in evidence. After perusing the order-sheets dated 4.4.1994 and 29.4.1994, which have been reproduced by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that the reliance placed on the document, the site plan, by the learned Tribunal to hold the deceased equally negligent in driving his vehicle is perverse. That apart this document was not put to the claimant-appellants; to explain the same they have also no opportunity to cross-examine on this document to the witnesses who would have tendered and proved it. In the facts of this case on which there is no dispute the learned single Judge has not committed any error to set-aside the finding of the learned Tribunal thereunder it is held that the deceased was equally negligent and responsible for the accident. 4. In the facts of this case on which there is no dispute the learned single Judge has not committed any error to set-aside the finding of the learned Tribunal thereunder it is held that the deceased was equally negligent and responsible for the accident. 4. Last contention of the learned counsel for the non-claimant-appellants is that the award of the penal interest by the learned single Judge is erroneous. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the non-claimant-appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance company Limited v. Keshav Bahadur & Ors., 2004(1) WLC (SC) Civil 406 : 2004 ACJ 648. 5. Shri Ram Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, is not opposing this contention of the learned counsel for the non-claimant-appellants. He submits that the award of penal interest to the claimant-respondents under the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge be deleted. 6. On the basis of the concession made by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents the part of the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge under which he has ordered that in case the amount of enhanced compensation is not paid or deposited by the non-claimant-appellants within stipulated time, the claimant-respondents shall be entitled for interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is deleted. 7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in the terms aforesaid. In view of this order, the stay application filed along with the appeal, also stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of as above. *******