Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed againstthe judgment dated 6-12-1994 rendered by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide which it granted compensation in the sum of rs.42,000 to the claimants, on account of the death of their son Karam Chand in a motor vehicle accident, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 2. Thefacts, in belief, are that on 10-12-1993, karam Chand (now deceased) was coming from Ambala side, on a scooter, bearing no. HR01 -B-6684 driven by one Jagdish and when reached near Tangri bridge, Bus bearing no. CH01-G5126, driven by respondent No.1, in a rash or negligent manner, came from jansui Headside and by going on the extreme right side of the road it struck against the scooter. The rider and the pillion rider of scooter bearing No. HR01 -B-6684 sustained multiple injuries, and died at the spot, on account of the same. It was stated, that the deceased was a tailor. He was also selling milk and in all, was earning Rs.6,000 per month. He was spending his entire income on the claimants, his parents, who were entirely dependent upon him. Accordingly, compensation in the sum of Rs.10 lacs, was claimed. 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the owners of the bus in their written statement, stated that when the bus, in question, being driven by Om parkash, driver reached near Tangri bridge, he saw a Haryana Roadways bus coming at a very high speed. A heap of sand was lying on one side of the road for repairs. The said bus crossed over that heap of sand due to which there was sand all around. The scooterists were following the Haryana Roadways bus. They could not see, due to the scattering of sand and the dark vision and struck against the bus, in question, which was stopped by respondent No.1, on one side of the road. It was further stated that the accident did not take place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the bus, by respondent No.1, and, as such, the claimants were not entitled to compensation. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. 4. Respondent No.1 -Om Parkash, driver of the bus, was not present despite service. He was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte, by the Claims Tribunal. 5. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. 4. Respondent No.1 -Om Parkash, driver of the bus, was not present despite service. He was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte, by the Claims Tribunal. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck: " (1) Whetherthe accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. CH-01-G-5126 by its driver om Parkash respondent No.1 OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Relief? 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the Claims Tribunal, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.42,000, as stated above. 7. Dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation, awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, the instant appeal was preferred by them. 8. Notice of the appeal was issued to respondent No.1, but he was not present despite service, and was proceeded against ex pane. Earlier, Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 was appearing, but later on, the standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 changed and he was duly informed through a notice but none appeared, on behalf of these respondents. They were also proceeded against exparte. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 10. The accident, in this case, was admitted by respondent Nos.2 and 3, in the written statement. They disputed that the driver f the bus in question, was not rash or negligent, in driving the same, at the time of accident. With regard to the factum, as to whether, Om parkash, driver of the bus, in question, was rash or negligent, the claimants examined rajbir Singh, P. W.2, who in clear-cut terms, stated that the scooter was on correct side of the road, and the bus, in question, struck against it, after it came to the wrong side of the road, as a result where of, Karam Chand, pillon rider and the rider of the scooter fell down, resulting into injuries, on their person, and leading to their instant death, it was further stated by him, that the driver of the bus, left the bus, on the road and ran away. It was, on the basis of the statement of Rajbir Singh, p. W.2, that the F. I. R. was registered. It was, on the basis of the statement of Rajbir Singh, p. W.2, that the F. I. R. was registered. The mode and manner, in which the accident took place, was also given by Rajbir Singh, in his statement, on the basis whereof F. I. R. Ex. P-1 was registered. The statement of Rajbir Singh, p. W.2, finds corroboration from F. I. R. Ex. P-1. A criminal case, with regard to the accident, is also pending againstthe driver of the bus. The mere fact that the bus was brought to the wrong side of the road, and it struck against the scooter, which was being ridden on the correct side of the road, in itself, is sufficient, to prove that the same was being driven in a rash or negligent manner, by the driver there of. The statement of Rajbirsingh, P. W.2, coupled with the F. I. R. Exhibit P-1, was rightly found to. be sufficient by the Tribunal to hold thatthe accident took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the bus, in question of by om Parkash driver thereof, resulting into the death of Karam Chand-deceased. 11. No doubt, Om Parkash, driver of the bus, appeared as R. W.1, and stated that all of a sudden, a scooter having a pillon rider, came out of the dusty air, at a very fast speed, hit against the standing bus, near the right side light, and as such, he was not at fault. He admitted, during the course of cross-examination, that he was facing trial in a criminal case, with regard to this accident. In case, the accident had taken place, in the manner, deposed to by Om Parkash, R. W.1, then he could have made a complaint, to the police officials of the concerned police station, and, in case, they were not ready to hear him, he could approach the higher police authorities, that he was not at fault, but the accident took place, due to the rash or negligent riding of the scooterist. He could also make a complaint, to the higher officers of his department, that he had been falsely implicated, in a criminal case, with regard to the accident, and that he was neither rash nor negligent at the time of driving the bus, as a result whereof injuries, were caused on the person of Karam Chand, leading to his death. He could also make a complaint, to the higher officers of his department, that he had been falsely implicated, in a criminal case, with regard to the accident, and that he was neither rash nor negligent at the time of driving the bus, as a result whereof injuries, were caused on the person of Karam Chand, leading to his death. He, however, did not do so, and kept mum. His mere silence for about a year, in itself, is sufficient to show that his version was not correct. The Tribunal, was, thus, right in not relying upon his evidence. The findings of the Tribunal, on issue No.1, being correct are affirmed. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation. He further contended that Ram Sarup, father of the deceased, when appeared as, P. W.1, stated in clear-cut terms that the deceased was earning Rs.2,500 - 3,000 from the tailoring business and Rs.100 per day, on account of the sale of milk, Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4, photocopies of the diary entries, were produced by the claimants, to show that the deceased was doing the tailoring work. However, no reliance, on the said documents, could be placed, as the said diary, could not be said to have been prepared, in the regular course of business. The Claims Tribunal, thus, rightly ignored these documents. The Claims Tribunal, in my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the income of the deceased, he being a labourer, could not be said to be more than Rs.1,500 per month. Since the deceased was unmarried, the multiplier was required to be applied, keeping in view the age of the claimants, the father and mother respectively of the deceased. The age of the father was 60 year and the age of the mother was 55 years, at the relevant time. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the multiplier of seven was wrongly applied by the tribunal. However, in my opinion, the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the deceased might be spending Rs.1,000 per month, for his personal maintenance, thereby leaving Rs.500 per month for the maintenance of the petitioners. The deceased was of marriageable age, and he was to get married within a year or so, and his liabilities were going to increase. The deceased was of marriageable age, and he was to get married within a year or so, and his liabilities were going to increase. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was required to assess the monthly dependency of the claimants, to the tune of Rs.750, thereby leaving Rs.750 per month, for the personal maintenance of the deceased. In this manner, the claimants/appellants, would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.65,000 in equal shares (Rs.750 x 12/7) + Rs.2,000 on account of funeral expenses. The finding of he tribunal on issue No.2, are modified to the extent, referred to above. 13. Forthe reasons, recorded hereinbefore, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.42,000, granted by the claims Tribunal to Rs.65,000, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the difference of enhanced amount, from the date of filing the petition, till its realization, holding all the respondents jointly and severally pay the same. --- *** ---