JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimants, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur dated 2.4.1997, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned Tribunal has made total award of Rs. 2,01,500/-. Since the factum of death, accident, negligence etc. are not in controversy, I need not go into that aspect of the matter, and would straightway confine to the aspect of the quantum only. 3. According to the claimant, as pleaded in para-3 of the claim petition, the deceased was a driver, earning Rs. 3000/- per month, and according to para-13-Ka he was getting a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month, and Rs. 1000/- as allowance and over time. Then, according to para-13-Kha he was paying Rs. 2000/- per month to the family. The Insurer in reply took the stand of total denial. 4. The claimant has examined A.W.1 Ganesh Lal, who is father of the deceased, and is one of the claimants. On the aspect of the quantum he has deposed, that the deceased was his son, and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-, and was also getting Rs. 1000/- as allowances, and he was paying Rs. 2000/- to his wife for maintenance of his family, and Rs. 500/- to him for medicines etc. In cross examination, all that has been asked is, that the driver was getting a salary of Rs. 1200/-. There is no other cross examination, and no other evidence has been led in rebuttal by any of the defendants. 5. The learned Tribunal in para-20 has noticed the contention of the claimant, about the deceased earning Rs. 3000/- per month, and for determination of compensation by employing a multiplier of 20, while the contention of the defendant was noticed in para-21, to the effect, that allowance was available to the deceased only on going on duty. Thus income to be taken to Rs. 2000/- per month, and multiplier of 10 should be employed. With this, in para-22 it has been found, that so far the question of income is concerned, the evidence of the claimant has not been rebutted, and it was straightway assumed, that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. Thus income to be taken to Rs. 2000/- per month, and multiplier of 10 should be employed. With this, in para-22 it has been found, that so far the question of income is concerned, the evidence of the claimant has not been rebutted, and it was straightway assumed, that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. Significantly nothing has been said about the allowance, as to whether any allowance was being received by the deceased, or not, and if it were received, how it was accounted for, while making deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased. Then, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chand, reported in 1996 DNJ (SC)-247 , the multiplier of 12 has been employed, and compensation has been calculated. 6. In my view, may be, that the multiplier is excessive, in view of the latest trend of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in absence of any cross objection on the aspect of quantum, interference need not be made in the multiplier employed. So far the income is concerned, there is no reason not to believe that the deceased was getting allowance of Rs. 1000/- per month, and obviously that was being spent up. As such the dependency was required to be assessed at Rs. 2000/-. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, and maintaining other calculations, the compensation is assessed, treating the dependency of the family at Rs. 2000/-, instead of Rs. 1334/- per month, and thus the figure of Rs. 1,92,096/- is substituted by the figure of Rs. 2,88,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation will, however, carry interest @ 8% from the date of claim petition, till payment. The other items awarded in calculations made are maintained. 8. Then, I come to the cross objections, which have been filed by the defendant M/s. Mahalaxmi Oil Industries. The thrust of the cross objections is, that the summons were not properly served, and without proper service, finding of negligence has been given. Then, the other objection raised is, that no issue is framed in respect of liability of cross objector. 9. In my view, on 25.8.1993 Vakalatnama had been filed on behalf of the cross objector, by Shri Lalchand Swarankar, Advocate. Vakalatnama is available on record at page B7/3, which is signed by Sita Ram and Ganpat Singh. Then, the other objection raised is, that no issue is framed in respect of liability of cross objector. 9. In my view, on 25.8.1993 Vakalatnama had been filed on behalf of the cross objector, by Shri Lalchand Swarankar, Advocate. Vakalatnama is available on record at page B7/3, which is signed by Sita Ram and Ganpat Singh. From the cause title it is clear, that Ganpat Singh is defendant no.2, and M/s. Mahalaxmi Oil Industries is described as proprietary concern, whose proprietor is described to be Sita Ram S/o Ramanand. It is not the averment in the cross objection, that Vakalatnama was not given. The order-sheet of the learned trial court dated 25.8.1993 records the factum of filation of Vakalatnama, as noticed above. Then, it also appears from the order-sheets, that adjournment after adjournments were taken by the counsel for filing written statement, and ultimately on 17.8.1994, the learned counsel did not appear, and the right of the defendants no. 1 and 2, to file written statement was closed. In such circumstances, the grounds taken in the cross objections cannot be sustained. 10. Thus, I do not find any force in the cross objection. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed as above, and the cross objections are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal partly allowed and Cross-objection dismissed. *******