JUDGMENT R.K. Vijayvargiya, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 14.6.1976 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 8 of 1972. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows:--Aliyarbeg s/o Nabinoorbeg was the registered owner of motor truck No. MPO-2958. Respondent Nos. 6(a) Yasinkhan and 6(b) Gullukhan are his legal representatives. According to the claimants the said truck was being used for carrying stolen timber from the forest. On 20.12.1971 at about 10 p.m. when Respondent No. 7 was driving the said truck and the stolen timber was being carried, the deceased Ramendrasingh, who was the Forest Ranger, chased the truck on his motor cycle. Ramendrasingh wanted to overtake the motor truck. He gave the required light signal and proceeded ahead. The Respondent No. 7 Majidkhan who was driving the truck first gave side and when the deceased was in the act of overtaking and crossing the truck he steered it in a rash and negligent manner, so that the back portion of the truck dashed against the motor cycle. The result was that the deceased fell down and died on the spot, as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. The claimants who are the widow, daughters, father and mother of the deceased submitted a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, from the owner, driver and insurer of the truck. According to them the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the said truck. The owner and driver of the truck remained ex parte and the claim was contested by the Appellant who is the insurer of the truck. The Appellant denied that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck. The Appellant also denied that the truck was being driven by the Respondent No. 7 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck but it was not proved that Respondent No. 7 was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck but it was not proved that Respondent No. 7 was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, awarded compensation against the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the Appellant. The Tribunal awarded Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at 4% per annum from the date of award till payment. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer has preferred this appeal. The claimants have filed cross objections against the award of the Tribunal. They seek enhancement of the amount as also interest on the amount from the date of application at 6% per annum. 3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the truck by which the accident was caused belonged to Aliyarbeg father of the Respondent Nos. 6(a) Yasinkhan and 6(b) Gullukhan. It is also not in dispute that the said truck was insured with the Appellant at the time of the accident. The first question that arises for determination is whether the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck. From the testimony of A.W. 3 Kashersingh who was sitting on the cabin of the truck it is clear that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver in driving the truck. The driver of the truck has not been examined to show how the accident was caused. In the circumstances the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck. The Tribunal, further, held that it was not proved that the Respondent No. 7 was actually driving the truck. The Tribunal, however, held that the Respondent No. 7 was sitting by the side of the driver and he authorised some other person to drive the truck. This also constituted negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 7 and as such he and also the owner and the insurer are liable for the negligent act of the driver. The Tribunal, however, held that the Respondent No. 7 was sitting by the side of the driver and he authorised some other person to drive the truck. This also constituted negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 7 and as such he and also the owner and the insurer are liable for the negligent act of the driver. Thus, the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the Appellant and the owner of the truck as also the authorised driver, Respondent No. 7, were liable to pay compensation, to the claimants. 4. As regards the amount of compensation the Tribunal held that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. He was in Government service and at the relevant time was a ranger in the Forest Department. A.W.2 Pushpa Kunwar, widow of the deceased deposed that the deceased was getting Rs.345/- per month and was contributing Rs.300/- per month to the family. The Tribunal held that the deceased was spending only Rs.150/- on the family. On that basis the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- as compensation to the widow and daughters of the deceased taking 10 as the multiplier. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,500/- and Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the mother and father of the deceased. In our opinion on the facts and the circumstances of the case the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and requires to be suitably enhanced. The deceased was in Government service and in the normal course had reasonable chances of promotion and enhancement in his emoluments. At the time of the accident if he was getting Rs.345/- per month it would not be unreasonable to hold that he was contributing at least Rs.200/- on his family. The deceased would have normally retired when he attained 58 years of age. In the circumstances the Tribunal was not justified in taking 10 as the multiplier and there is no reason to depart from the normal practice of adopting 15 as a conventional multiplier. Thus, the dependency to the family is Rs.2,400/- (200 12) per year. Taking 15 as the multiplier as aforesaid the amount of compensation works out to Rs.36,000/- . In the circumstances the Tribunal was not justified in taking 10 as the multiplier and there is no reason to depart from the normal practice of adopting 15 as a conventional multiplier. Thus, the dependency to the family is Rs.2,400/- (200 12) per year. Taking 15 as the multiplier as aforesaid the amount of compensation works out to Rs.36,000/- . As the further prospect of the deceased has not been taken into account in determining the dependency, in our opinion, no deduction should be made on account of lump sum payment and uncertainty of life as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to receive Rs.36,000/- as compensation from the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the Respondent Nos. 1 Pushpa Kunwar, widow of the deceased on behalf of herself and her minor daughters, Respondent No. 2 Kumari Nirupama and Respondent No. 3 Kumari Minakshi. Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to Respondent No. 4 Gulabsingh, father of the deceased and Rs.6,000/- shall be paid to Sardarkunwarbai w/o Gulabsingh, mother of the deceased. The claimants shall also get interest on the amount awarded at 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. 5. As a result of the discussion aforesaid this appeal is dismissed and the cross objections are allowed to the extent indicated above. The award of the Tribunal is modified in the manner and to the extent as directed above. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal and the cross objections. Appeal dismissed