Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 28-10-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge Champawat (hereinafter referred as Tribunal') in MAC. No. 29/2003 Smt. Balwanti Devi & others Vs. U .P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,15,740/- as compensation against the appellant-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as •U.P.S.R.T.C.'), The appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within two months from the date of award. In default of payment, the claimants-respondents would be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 16,20,000/- alleging therein that on 12-05-2003 the deceased-Milap Singh was travelling from Champawat to Tanakpur in the offending Bus No. UP 02B-7357, which was being driven rashly and negligently by 'ts driver When the offending bus reached near Kathol and Chalthi, it fell into a gorge due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased had sustained the grievous injuries on his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased was employed as Hawaldar in the Indian Army. He was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month at the time of incident. Hence, the claim petition had been preferred by the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. 3. The opposite party-U.P.S.R.T.C. filed its written statement and contested the case. The U.P.S.R.T.C~ had alleged in the written statement that the driver of the offending bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. The appellant had further alleged in his written statement that the accident occurred due to the failure of its steering. The opposite party NO.2- Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation had not filed any written statement. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the offending bus fell into a gorge due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the offending bus fell into a gorge due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died. The learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the deceased as 40-41 years. It was further held that he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,740/- per month. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 4,493/- per month. The annual dependency assessed by the Tribunal was thus Rs. 4,493 x 12 = 53,916/-. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of"15" and the amount of compensation was assessed Rs. 8,08,740/-. Apart this, Rs. 2000/- for last rites and Rs. 5000/- for love and affection were awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 8,15,740/- to the claimants as compensation. The appellant was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants within two months from the date of award. In default of payment of the compensation within the stipulated time, the claimants would also be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the U.P. Road Transport Corporation-appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard Sri A.N. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the claimants. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the failure of steering rod and it was a mechanical defect. It was further contended that the driver of the offending bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to vis-major. It was further contended that the quantum of award was exorbitant and the findings recorded by the Tribunal are against the record. 8. It was further contended that the driver of the offending bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to vis-major. It was further contended that the quantum of award was exorbitant and the findings recorded by the Tribunal are against the record. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased Milap Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12-05-2003; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus; and the owner of the offending bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimants have been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The claimants had adduced the evidence of PW2-Milap Singh S/o Mohan Singh who had stated in his evidence that he was also travelling in the offending bus at the time of accident and the driver of the offending bus was rash and negligent at the time of accident. He had also stated in his evidence that the road was enough wide at the place where the bus fell into a gorge. He had further stated that he gave cautionary advice to the driver of the offending bus about its high speed. The claimants had also adduced the evidence of Balwanti Devi PW 1, who was not present at the time of accident. She has supported the averments made in the claim petition. As against this the appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. had examined Ganesh Dutt Tiwari DW1 who was the driver of the offending bus. Ganesh Dutt Tiwari OW 1 had supported the averments of the written statement of the appellant and he had further stated that he was driving the vehicle carefully. He further stated that when he reached near Kathol & Chalthi he tried to turn the offending bus towards the left side of the road, but due to the sudden failure of its steering the bus fell into the gorge. In order to succeed in a defence that the accident was due to a mechanical defect the owner will have to prove that he had taken all necessary precautions and kept the vehicle in a roadworthy condition. No such attempt was made to establish that all necessary precautions were taken to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and that the defect occurred inspite of the reasonable care and caution taken by the owner. No such attempt was made to establish that all necessary precautions were taken to keep the vehicle in a roadworthy condition and that the defect occurred inspite of the reasonable care and caution taken by the owner. In order to sustain a plea that the accident was due to the mechanical defect the owner must show that the accident occurred due to the 'mechanical defect and the defect was latent and not discoverable by the use of reasonable care. The owner is not liable if the accident is due to a latent defect which is not discoverable by reasonable care. The burden of proving that the accident was due to a mechanical defect is on the owner and it is his duty to show that he had taken all reasonable care and that despite such care the defect remained hidden. The appellant had not adduced any evidence to the above effect and merely on the statement of the driver that the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect it cannot be held that the accident took place due to the mechanical defect. The report of the technical expert had not been filed on record to show that the steering of the offending vehicle failed. Thus, the evidence of the claimants is credible and cogent. The witness of the claimants was cross examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from his cross examination. Apart this, the manner in which the offending bus had fallen into the gorge does not leave any doubt about the negligence of the driver of the offending bus which led to the accident resulting the death of several persons including the deceased Milap Singh. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending bus. The Tribunal had rightly held that the owner of the offending bus was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 9. Now, we will examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 8,15,740/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. 8,15,740/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the case in hand, the deceased was employed in the Indian Army and he died on 12-05-2003 leaving behind his wife Smt. Balwanti Devi aged 32 years, three minor daughters namely, Mamta aged 14 years, Kiran aged 11 years & Pooja aged 8 years, his son Manish aged 4 years and his mother Smt. Kalawati. The claimants had pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The evidence led before the learned Tribunal in the form of salary certificate issued by the Indian Army had established that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/- per month. The Tribunal had rightly deducted the allowances from the income of the deceased and had calculated the annual (sic) income of the deceased at Rs. 6,740/- per month. Considering the above, we do not find any infirmity in calculating the monthly income of the deceased. 11. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier of '15' for calculating the compensation. The deceased Milap Singh was aged about 40-41 years on the date of accident. The claimants are his widow; three minor daughters; one minor son and his widow mother. His widow Smt. Balwanti Devi is shown aged about 32 years; whereas their minor children were aged about 4 years to 14 years. Considering this, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly selected the multiplier of '15' in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Chellammal & others Vs. Kailasam & another reported in 2005 (11) SCC 387, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,08,704/- by applying the multiplier as 24. The High Court, on appeal, reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 4,91 ,600/- by applying multiplier of 12. The age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of his death and the High Court has applied the multiplier of 12. 8,08,704/- by applying the multiplier as 24. The High Court, on appeal, reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 4,91 ,600/- by applying multiplier of 12. The age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of his death and the High Court has applied the multiplier of 12. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that as the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 41 years, according to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier that could have been applied was 15 and not 12. Accordingly, the compensation was awarded by applying the multiplier of 15. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the selection of the multiplier in the facts and circumstances of the case. The claimants are also entitled for Rs. 20qO/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for the loss of consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,15,740/-. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation in this case. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 13. The appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs.