LAHOTI AND NAMJOSHI, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 11-10-2001 Tribunal, Begamganj, district Raisen in Claim Case No. 17 of 2000 by which an amount of Rs. 77,800 along with 12 per cent interest has been awarded in favour of the appellants. ( 2 ) IN this appeal, appellants have challenged the quantum of the award and also the finding of the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased. The facts of the case are that on 26-8-2000 the deceased Mohd. Saleem was travelling on a bus from Bhopal to Sagar. This vehicle was driven by respondent Rashid Khan and was owned by Madhya Pradesh State Road transport Corporation, Depot Sagar, District sagar. At about 10 p. m. when the busreached gairajganj in front of Sharma Hotel, deceased mohd. Saleem was to get down there and when driver slowed down the bus, Saleem alighted. When alighting from the bus he fell down resulting in serious injuries in his waist, hips and on chest. Saleem was brought to the hospital where he was declared dead. The deceased was a mechanic and was carrying on truck and tractor repairing work and as per the claimants he was earning Rs. 8,000 per month. On the aforesaid ground the claimants who are parents of the deceased saleem have claimed Rs. 57,90,000 along with interest from the respondents. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS contested the caseby filing written statement, in which the respondents have denied the allegations of the claim petition. No specific defence has been taken by respondents in the Written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the tribunal framed six issues and both the parties led evidence. ( 4 ) CLAIMANTS examined Mohd. Latif, father of the deceased Mohd. Saleem as A. W. 1, gulam Rasool, A. W. 2, who was travelling in the same bus, Mohd. Sharif, A. W. 3, who has appeared to prove the fact that the deceased was a mechanic and was earning Rs. 8,000 per month. Respondents have examined rashid Khan, driver of the bus and Amar chand Jain who was travelling in the same bus. Tribunal by appreciation of evidence produced by the parlies recorded findings that Mohd. Saleem tried to alight from the bus when it was moving slowly and fell down, resulting in injuries to the deceased and thereafter his death. Respondents have examined rashid Khan, driver of the bus and Amar chand Jain who was travelling in the same bus. Tribunal by appreciation of evidence produced by the parlies recorded findings that Mohd. Saleem tried to alight from the bus when it was moving slowly and fell down, resulting in injuries to the deceased and thereafter his death. Deceased was also negligent in alighting from the running bus. The Tribunal found contributory negligence in ratio of 50:50 of both, the deceased and driver of the bus and awarded compensation. This award is challenged in this appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that in fact deceased was not negligent, it was rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 which resulted in the accident. It is submitted by the appellants that the driver ought to have stopped the bus for alighting the deceased, but he has only slowed down the bus resulting in the accident and the death of the deceased. Reliance is placed by the appellants on the judgment of delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Kumar; Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation v. Devilal, and Vijay Singh v. Haryana Roadways, and submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far as it relates to contribu tory negligence be set aside. It is further submitted that the deceased was a mechanic and he was earning Rs. 8,000 per month. The Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 1,200 which finding is apparently perverse. On the aforesaid ground, it is submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal be set aside and enhanced compensation be awarded in favour of the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award and submitted that findings recorded by the claims Tribunal are in accordance with the evidence produced in the case. Deceased himself was negligent in alighting from the running bus and Tribunal has rightly found contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 50 per cent. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 which is on higher side. As per the judgment of Apex Court in municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, the maximum multiplier which may be applied in the present case is 10 and there is no necessity for the enhancement of the compensation. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 which is on higher side. As per the judgment of Apex Court in municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, the maximum multiplier which may be applied in the present case is 10 and there is no necessity for the enhancement of the compensation. ( 7 ) TO appreciate the rival contention of the parties, firstly, the question may be seen whether the deceased was also negligent in the accident or it was negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. In this regard the averments made in the claim petition are very specific that when Mohd. Saleem was alighting from the bus, the driver who was in a hurry, all of a sudden drove the bus resulting in the accident and the deceased fell down from the bus and received serious injuries. Though the respondents have filed written statement but have not taken specific plea that in fact the deceased alighted from stationary bus and thereafter the driver had driven the bus or the deceased alighted from the running bus. In the absence of any specific pleadings in the written statement, the defence as adduced by the respondent during the evidence cannot be believed. In this case eyewitness is Gulam Rasool, A. W. 2, who was travelling in the same bus and was sitting in the front gate of the bus. He has specifically stated that when the bus reached at about 10 p. m. at Tekapar Colony, Saleem asked driver to stop the bus. Bus was stopped for a while but when Saleem was alighting from the bus the driver drove the bus, resultantly he fell down. He saw that Saleem was crying as he had received injuries on stomach and chest. Saleem was brought to the hospital in a handcart and message was also sent to his house. When he reached the hospital the doctor informed that Saleem has died. In the hospital father of Saleem reached and, thereafter, they went to police station for lodging F. I. R. In the cross-examination, he has been asked whether any other person alighted from the bus. He has replied that only Saleem alighted from the bus and no other passenger. He further stated that on hearing of the crying of Saleem, bus was stopped. He has replied that only Saleem alighted from the bus and no other passenger. He further stated that on hearing of the crying of Saleem, bus was stopped. The Respondents have examined rashid Khan as N. A. W. 1, in which he has stated that the bus was stopped at Gajrajganj in front of the rest house where three persons alighted. Thereafter he heard some voice from the back side and stopped the vehicle then he saw that one person was lying near bitumen drums. The vehicle was stopped just 10 steps ahead where the aforesaid passenger alighted. In cross-examination he was asked a question that when Saleem was alighting and when his one foot was on steps of bus and another was on road, the bus was driven by him negligently, he denied to this fact. Another witness has been examined by respondent as N. A. W. 2 Amar Chand Jain who has also stated that at about 9. 40 p. m. on the date of the incident, the bus was stopped and thereafter he became aware that one person fell down, then he saw that one person was lying on the left side of the road. How he alighted from the bus, he is not aware as he was sleeping. In the cross-examination he was asked how many passengers alighted along with the deceased, he replied that he has no knowledge. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the evidence of Gulam Rasool appears to be believable. The driver in the written statement has not taken the a foresaid plea that after the bus was stopped the passenger alighted. Why this plea has not been taken in the written statement, there is no explanation on the part of the respondents. The defence of the respondent was very specific in which evidence has been adduced but without any pleadings. In the absence of pleadings, the statement of the driver cannot be accepted. The statement of Gulam Rasool appears to be natural who has stated that when the bus stopped for a while and Saleem was alighting, the driver drove the bus resulting in Saleem falling down from the bus and receiving injuries. This is the pleaded case on the part of the claimants-appellants which find support by the statement of gulam Rasool, A. W. 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Gulam Rasool, a. W. 2. This is the pleaded case on the part of the claimants-appellants which find support by the statement of gulam Rasool, A. W. 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Gulam Rasool, a. W. 2. This was the bus of Madhya Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation and there must be conductor on the bus. The seat of the conductor is always adjoining to the gate and the conductor was the appropriate person to narrate the correct facts but he was not examined by respondents. The statement of the driver also is not believable. Witness amar Chand Jain was sleeping when the incident occurred. In these circumstances it is apparent that the occurred because of rash and negligent act of responden No. 1 resulting in death of Mohd. Saleem. Respondents are liable for the aforesaid accident. ( 8 ) NOW the second question as to how much compensation the appellants are entitled from the respondents, may be considered. Claims Tribunal in theimpugned award has recorded a finding that the deceased was a mechanic but has assessed his income as Rs. 1,200 per month in para 5 of the award. While the witness No. 1 has stated that the deceased was a tractor mechanic and was earning Rs. 8,000 per month. His age at the time of death was 21 years. In cross-examination in para 5, he has stated that his daily income was between Rs. 250 and Rs. 400. A. W. 3 has also stated in respect of income of the deceased. In para 5 he has stated that in his house, Saleem was tenant at the rate of Rs. 600 per month. He was running a mechanic shop. He was doing this business since two and a half years. Saleem had stated to him that he was saving between Rs. 300 and Rs. 400 per day. In a month he was earning between Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 8,000. In cross-examination, he stated that in out of season he was saving between Rs. 200 and rs. 400. Considering entire evidence in respect of income of the deceased, it can very well be assessed that the deceased was earning Rs. 250 per day. The mechanic must be doing business minimum for 25 days in a month. For 25 days he must be earning minimum Rs. 6,250 which may be accepted as reasonable income of deceased Mohd. Saleem. 400. Considering entire evidence in respect of income of the deceased, it can very well be assessed that the deceased was earning Rs. 250 per day. The mechanic must be doing business minimum for 25 days in a month. For 25 days he must be earning minimum Rs. 6,250 which may be accepted as reasonable income of deceased Mohd. Saleem. As he was not married, the dependency of appellants who are parents may be assessed to Rs. 4,200 after deducting one-third as personal expenses of Saleem. Now, what should be the multiplier is to be seen. The claimants are parents who are between 42 and 45 years old and as per their average age, multiplier of 15 in Second schedule under Section 163-A may be applied. Respondents have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer (supra), in which the Apex Court held that: " (9) So far as the quantum of compensation isconcerned we find that at the time of accident, as revealed from the claim petition, the claimants were 47 years and 43 years respectively. It is not the age of the deceased alone but the age of claimants as well which are to be the relevant factors, in case parents or other dependants are claimants. (10) In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, and M. S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, a law on the principles of assessment of compensations was elaborated. In Lata wadhwa's case this court while dealing with the issue in relation to the compensation to be paid in relation to the death of children, placing reliance upon the decision of Lord Atkinson in taff Vale Railway Company v. Jenkins, has ruled that 'in cases of death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. (11) This court in M. S. Grewal's case, (supra), has clearly observed that decision in Lata Wadhwa's case, (supra), is definitely a guiding factor in the matter of award of compensation wherein children die under an unfortunate accident. (11) This court in M. S. Grewal's case, (supra), has clearly observed that decision in Lata Wadhwa's case, (supra), is definitely a guiding factor in the matter of award of compensation wherein children die under an unfortunate accident. The said observation was made after taking into consideration the conclusions arrived in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), regarding the compensation which was to be paid and the multiplier which was to be paid and the multiplier which was to be applied in relation to the death of child. This court in General Manager, Kerala state Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, held that the proper method of compensation is the multiplier method and the same view was reiterated in M. S. Grewal's case (supra), observing that 'needless to say that multiplier method stands accepted by this court in the said decision'. (12) Keeping in view the observations made by this court in the various cases, several other factors need to be taken note of. The deceased was unmarried. The contribution to the parents who had their separate earnings being employed and educated have relevance. The possibility of reduction in contribution once a person gets married is a reality. The compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution of the pecuniary benefits. The multiplie adopted by the Tribunal and confirmee by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age claimants it can never exceed 10 ever by the most liberal standards. Worked out on that basis amount comes to rs. 3,60,000 at the monthly expected income fixed by Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. Looking into the nature of the contributory negligence of the deceased after making an appropriate deduction which can reasonably be fixed at 25 per cent, the compensation amount payable by the corporation can be fixed at Rs. 3,00,000 including the amount awarded by the high Court for loss of expectation of life. Interest at the rate as awarded by the High Court is maintained from the dale of application for compensation. " ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid case, deceased was 18 years old and at the time of death he was studying and not earning. The Apex Court considering the aforesaid circumstances found it appropriate that multiplier of 10 may be applied in peculiar circumstances of the case. " ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid case, deceased was 18 years old and at the time of death he was studying and not earning. The Apex Court considering the aforesaid circumstances found it appropriate that multiplier of 10 may be applied in peculiar circumstances of the case. In the present case, deceased was earning and was not unemployed student, but the claimants are parents. In these circumstances adopting the multiplier of 10 as held by the Supreme Court shall be reasonable multiplier which may be made applicable. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the monthly dependency of the appellants which is assessed at rs. 4,200, the annual dependency may be assessed to Rs. 50,400 and after using the multiplier of 10, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,04,000. The round figure amount which may be awarded in the case comes to rs. 5,00,000. The appellants shall be entitled for Rs. 2,000 by way of funeral expenses, rs. 4,000 for loss to the estate; total compensation which may be awarded to appellants comes to Rs. 5,06,000 (rupees five lakh six thousand ). On the aforesaid amount claimants shall be entitled to 6 per cent interest from the date of filing of the application, till the payment of the amount. If the respondents have deposited the compensation as directed by the Tribunal, due adjustment shall be given to respondents in this regard. ( 11 ) THE appellants shall be entitled to costs of the appeal which is quantified to rs. 2,000. - .