JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging the award dated 31.8.1987, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 86,400/- in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1, who is the sister of the deceased. 2. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the accident was caused by Lal Singh, driver of the offending bus (respondent No. 3), on account of his rash and negligent driving. The fault of Lal Singh has been found to be established from the statement of Bisan Dass, AW2, who is brother of the deceased. Accordingly it has been concluded that Surinder Pal, deceased, was killed due to rash and negligent driving of Lal Singh. The findings of the Tribunal on the aforementioned issue are available in para 9 of the award, which reads as under:- “9. Lal Singh respondent no. 3 denied in the cross examination that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently or that after hitting the bus with the ill fated rickshaw, his bus hit the rehri of Jaswant Singh or that he had paid Rs. 2,000/- to Jaswant Singh. However, he admitted that a road from Mehta side runs into the G.T. Road, near the spot where the accident took place and that Jaswant Singh had also filed a claim application against him. These two admissions of Lal Singh respondent no. 3 read with F.I.R. Ex. A1 clearly show that he was at fault. He was driving the bus un-duly fast at a junction point and could not control it when the rickshaw puller tried to cross the road. Had he not hit Jaswant Singh, there was no question of Jaswant Singh bringing a claim application against him. The fact that he hit Jaswant Singh shows that he did not apply brakes as stated by respondents in their pleadings or he applied brakes but was coming so fast that the application of brakes did not have any effect. I am of the considered opinion that the accident took place due to his fault. The fact that he hit Jaswant Singh shows that he did not apply brakes as stated by respondents in their pleadings or he applied brakes but was coming so fast that the application of brakes did not have any effect. I am of the considered opinion that the accident took place due to his fault. Moreover his fault is duly established from the statement of AW2 Bishan Dass whose cross-examination does not in any manner indicate that the fault might have been of the deceased brother of the witness and driver is entitled to be absolved of any responsibility. It is clear that death of Surinder Pal occurred due to the motor accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 3 who is liable to pay compensation alongwith respondents no. 1 & 2, who are the owners of the bus.” 3. The Tribunal then proceeded to record the finding with regard to the income of the deceased and the dependency of Balwinder Kaur-claimant respondent No. 1. It has been found that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/- by plying rickshaw and dependency of Rs. 600/- per month in respect of Balwinder Kaur has been determined. The Tribunal appears to be conscious of the fact that the deceased brother of claimant respondent No. 1 was also saving some money for the marriage of his sister, namely, Balwinder Kaur-claimant respondent No. 1 in addition to spending on day-today needs. Claimant respondent No. 2 Bishan Dass, who was also plying rickshaw like his deceased brother Surinder Pal, has not been held entitled to any compensation as he has not been found to be dependent. Eventually the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 by keeping in view the fact that Balwinder Kaur- claimant respondent No. 1 was 18 years of age and she was likely to get married at the age of 26 years. The view of the Tribunal is discernible in para 11 of the award and the same reads as under:- “11. Balwinder Kaur applicant is aged 18 years and girls do get married around the age of 26 years at the latest these days. The view of the Tribunal is discernible in para 11 of the award and the same reads as under:- “11. Balwinder Kaur applicant is aged 18 years and girls do get married around the age of 26 years at the latest these days. However allowing for the fact that her parents are not alive and Bishan Dass her only brother who is now to arrange her marriage after finding a suitable match, it would be reasonable to fix probable age of marriage of Balwinder Kaur at 30 years as suggested by her learned counsel. Thus she is entitled to compensation equal to an amount at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month for a period of 12 years. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued on the authority of ‘ Mohinder Kaur and others v. Dhian Chand alias Dhani Ram and others, 1987 S.L.J. 221’ that only dependency should be calculated at a higher amount and multiplier of 16 should be applied. However that was the case of a farmer/lessee who used to cultivate the land of others on lease and was only 25 years old when he died. He left behind his young widow aged 20 years alongwith his son of one year age and a mother of 60 years of age. In the present case, applicant no. 1 is yet to be married and after marriage, her responsibility will be on her husband and could not have continued to remain on the deceased. 4 197 of 1988 Therefore multiplier of 12 is the correct multiplier applicable in this case instead of standard multiplier of 16 years. I therefore calculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to applicant no. 1 at Rs. 86,400/- only. Applicant no. 2 is not entitled to any compensation. All the three respondents are liable to pay this compensation. The issue is decided accordingly.” The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition i.e. 13.9.1985 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs. 200/-. 5. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no evidence to support the finding that any accident took place or that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/- per month. According to the learned counsel, merely on the statement made by the claimantrespondent No. 1, sister of the deceased, his income has been assessed to be Rs. 200/-. 5. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no evidence to support the finding that any accident took place or that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/- per month. According to the learned counsel, merely on the statement made by the claimantrespondent No. 1, sister of the deceased, his income has been assessed to be Rs. 900/- per month. Learned counsel has maintained that the finding with regard to marriage at the age of 26 years is also conjectural in nature and not supported by any cogent evidence. 6. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the claimantrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 has argued that the manner of accident, eye witnesses’ account, lodging of FIR and admission by Lal Singhrespondent No. 3, driver of the offending bus, would furnish ample proof of the fact that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Lal Singh-respondent No. 3 and it cannot be argued that there is no evidence on record. Learned counsel has made 5 197 of 1988 a detailed reference to FIR No. 161 of 1985, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 344A, registered at Police Station ‘A’ Division, Amritsar. He has also referred to various findings recorded by the Tribunal to argue that detailed evidence has been discussed in para Nos. 7 to 12 in support of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the detailed submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the instant appeal is without any merit. As per Regulations 6 and 7 as given in 10th Schedule of the Act, when the driver of a vehicle enters a ‘T’ junction then he is expected to slow down his vehicle. He is not to enter any such intersection or junction unless he has ensured that he could do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. He has to give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right side. Regulations 6 and 7 as given in 10th Schedule of the Act reads as under:- “ 6. He has to give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right side. Regulations 6 and 7 as given in 10th Schedule of the Act reads as under:- “ 6. The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. 7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles 6 197 of 1988 proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand.” 8. The aforementioned Regulations came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills and others v. Smt. Raj Anand and others, 2003 (1) PLR 23, and the relevant observations appeared in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “ 15. A reading of the Regulations quoted above shows that it is incumbent upon the driver of the motor vehicle to slow down his vehicle when approaching a road inter-section, a road junction and also to give way to the vehicle approaching the inter-section on his right side. 16. The argument that the driver of the bus failed in both of his obligations, namely, to drive the bus on the right side of the truck and also to slow down before entering on the crossing has been substantiated because the truck has been damaged on its middle left side which would indicate that the bus driver was not driving on the right side of the truck. It is further clear that the speed of the bus was so high that it took ‘U’ turn facing the road from which it had come. It also threw away the truck into the ditches of the side road. ......” 9. It is further clear that the speed of the bus was so high that it took ‘U’ turn facing the road from which it had come. It also threw away the truck into the ditches of the side road. ......” 9. When the principles enunciated in Regulations 6 and 7 as interpreted by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Sachdeva Rice Mills case (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case, no doubt is left that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault while driving the offending bus unduly fast at a junction point when he was not able to control it as is evident from the reproduced para 9 of the award. In addition to causing death of Surinder Pal, he had also hit one Jaswant Singh, a rehri owner, who also filed a claim petition, which shows that he did not slow down the offending bus or he applied brakes so late that the bus stopped only after hitting Jaswant Singh. Therefore, there is patent violation of Regulations 6 and 7 contained in 10th Schedule of the Act, by Lal Singh-respondent No. 3, driver of the offending bus. 10. The quantum of compensation has also been determined modestly. Rs. 900/- per month would work out Rs. 30 per day, which would be a paltry sum in respect of the period in question. The dependency of Rs. 600/- for a period of 12 years in respect of claimant-respondent No. 1, who is the sister of the deceased and was unmarried, has been rightly worked out by applying the multiplier of 16. The total amount awarded i.e. Rs. 86,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till payment, would by no stretch of imagination be recorded as excessive. The appeal is wholly without merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 11. The argument of the learned State counsel that there is no evidence on record does not require any detailed consideration because it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that there is ample evidence in the form of FIR and statements of various witnesses to substantiate the claim made by claimant-respondent No. 1. 12. No other argument has been addressed. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.