IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.89 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11th May ,2010. Guddi & others …Appellants. Versus: Ayang Rsmpochey & another …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.Suvrata Nijhwan, Advocate. Respondent-1 ex-parte. For Respondent-2. Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral) . CMP (M) No. 108 of 2009 Heard. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. Respondent No. 1 though, served, but nobody appears on his behalf. Before the learned trial Court, respondent No.1 was also proceeded against ex-parte. This application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 3. The only point raised for consideration before this Court in this appeal is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was in error in applying multiplier of 12. It was undisputed before the Tribunal and proved on record that deceased Dorje Chhering was 36 years old at the time of the accident, in which he died. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that according to the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned trial Court was in error in not adopting the II Schedule, which can serve as a guideline for adopting multiplier in the case of death of a person in a motor accident. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that a multiplier of 16 shall be used for calculating the compensation awarded instead of 12. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), May 11, 2010(HL) Judge.