RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the judgment dated 19.11.2001 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, in MAC Case No.91/98, whereby claim petition for award of compensation in a death case was dismissed by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal in impugned judgment has quantified compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- but rejected the claim petition holding that claimants could not prove negligence of the driver of the bus which was owned by respondent R.S.R.T.C. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that evidence that was adduced by the appellants clearly proves that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No.2. The bus came on wrong side and hit the scooter from front side. The evidence that was adduced by appellants has fully proved this fact. In this connection, learned counsel for appellants has referred to statement of claimant Jyoti (AW-1), who is widow of deceased Rajesh, and AW-2 Om Prakash, who is brother of the deceased. It is argued that while these witnesses proved the case of the claimants, there was no evidence in rebuttal adduced by respondent RSRTC as no evidence whatsoever was produced, and thus the evidence of the appellants could not be disbelieved or ignored. But learned Tribunal has acted with a prejudged notion and has not properly appreciated the evidence of the appellants. It is wrongly held that AW-2 Om Prakash was not an eye witness and on that basis it is also wrongly held that bus driver was not negligent. It was argued that the respondent RSRTC if wanted to contest the claim of the appellants, it ought to have adduced the evidence. It cannot rely on the evidence of the appellants which has otherwise fully proved involvement of the bus of respondent RSRTC. Learned Tribunal has taken more hyper technical view. The accident took place in the year 1998 and claim petition was filed in that very year, therefore the appeal be allowed awarding compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that witness AW-1 Jyoti, as per her own statement, was not an eye witness and she has made statement on hearsay. Another witness AW-2 Om Prakash, the brother of deceased, was also a witness of hearsay. Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved him by holding that he was not an eye witness. Another witness AW-2 Om Prakash, the brother of deceased, was also a witness of hearsay. Learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved him by holding that he was not an eye witness. This is because his statement shows that he reached the site of accident after it had already taken place. Learned counsel in this connection referred to discussion made in para 10 of the award. Learned counsel also referred to the cross-examination of AW-1 Jyoti, wherein she stated that nephew of the deceased Harish, who was riding the scooter, also sustained injuries in his leg, which was amputated. He was the best witness who has not been produced by the claimants, therefore, their case may not be accepted. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that the respondent RSRTC, in the present case, has not produced any evidence whatsoever as against the evidence produced by the claimant-appellants. AW-2 Om Prakash, brother of the deceased, has stated that the bus was coming from Kota side. His brother Rajesh and nephew Harish were going to hospital on scooter. The bus hit them from front side near cattle hospital. They were on left side. The bus did not blow horn. He was also going to hospital to get treatment of his brother who was suffering from fever. He saw the accident taking place from his own eyes. It was a coincidence that he reached the site at the time of accident. Harish and Rajesh were going on scooter. He also reached there because he started from his residence earlier than them. He has denied the suggestion that Harish was not hit by roadways bus and that he was hit by some other vehicle. The leg of Harish was amputated. Seeing the incident he became nervous and that he was not aware who was taken his brother and nephew to hospital. The AW-1 Jyoti, the widow of the deceased has given a statement that her husband was a pillion rider of the scooter which was being driven by Harish Kumar. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was spent on his treatment at Jhalawar, Kota and Jaipur but ultimately his life could not be saved. Her husband used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. 5. What was adduced by the claimants in evidence remained unrebutted by respondent RSRTC. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was spent on his treatment at Jhalawar, Kota and Jaipur but ultimately his life could not be saved. Her husband used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. 5. What was adduced by the claimants in evidence remained unrebutted by respondent RSRTC. It is surprising as to how the Tribunal could disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the claimants to hold that deceased Rajesh died because of his own negligence or that the bus driver was not at all negligent. The accident has taken place from the front side, therefore, even otherwise it cannot be accepted that it was a case of total negligence on the part of the scooter rider. The respondent RSRTC has not adduced any evidence to prove case of composite negligence. Their suggestion in the reply to the claim petition, as pleaded in the special pleas, that the accident took place as the scooter was trying to overtake some other vehicle, also has not been proved by them by any other evidence. Such a plea, therefore, cannot be accepted just because the respondents have taken the plea. The accident must, therefore, be held to have taken place due to negligence of the bus driver. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the amount quantified by the Tribunal in Issue No.2 should be paid to the claimants by respondents RSRTC. However, keeping in view that there are five claimants, judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), would be appli-cable and the deduction should be only 1/4th, whereas the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4th from his annual income, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,250/-. The learned Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased at 28 years, has rightly applied multipleir of 18 as per the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,02,500/- counting thus 11250 x 18. The appellants are also held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.35,000/- for the actual medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.2,49,500/-. The compensation for loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,02,500/- counting thus 11250 x 18. The appellants are also held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.35,000/- for the actual medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.2,49,500/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondent RSRTC.