JUDGMENT P.D. Mulye, J 1. The Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation, against the award dated 31st July, 1978, given by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 18 of 1976, whereby he has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- plus costs and interest in favour of the claimant-Appellants, though they had put up a claim for Rs. 75,000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, which are no longer in dispute, may be stated, in brief, thus: Respondent No.1, Kanoli Pushparaj is the proprietor of truck No. MHS 6943, Respondent No. 2, Chhotelal, was the driver of the said truck on the fateful day, i.e. 26.3.1976, when the accident occurred at about 10.30 p.m. near village Dhamnod. The said truck was insured with Respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. On 26.3.1976, at about 10.30 p.m. the deceased Kuldipsingh, who was working as a cleaner on a truck, was sitting near a hotel situated near the river a short distance from Dhamnod, the said truck driven by Respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, which was proceeding from Indore towards Dhamnod, left the road dashed against telephone poll and also a gumti, in such a manner that in that process it dashed against the deceased Kuldipsingh and the hotel boy Nanuram as also one Jogendrasingh, who on account of the injuries sustained by them died in that accident. 3. The Appellants, who are the dependents of the deceased, namely, his widow and son, therefore, filed the present claim petition, which was contested by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. According to them the truck driver was driving the truck carefully but suddenly, while trying to save a person, who was crossing the road, the accident occurred for which no negligence could be attributed to him. The truck driver was ex parte. 4. The learned Member on evidence found that the Respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner that it had first dashed against a telephone poll whereafter it broke through a pan gumti and pierced into a hotel, where the deceased Kuldipsingh was sitting. He rejected the plea taken by the Respondents that the accident was inevitable. He rejected the plea taken by the Respondents that the accident was inevitable. Thus, considering the young age of the deceased at the time of the accident, who was aged 30 years as also his monthly income of Rs. 300/-, he thought it just and proper to award a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- plus costs and interest against all the Respondents. Hence this appeal. 5. As the finding regarding the manner in which the accident occurred was not challenged before me, it is not necessary for me to reconsider the evidence on that point, from which it has been held by the learned Member that the deceased died an accidental death on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the truck driver. However, the learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the learned Member, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, having come to a conclusion that the dependency of the claimant-Appellants was Rs. 150/- per month and also having applied the multiplier of 20, the learned Member has committed an error in awarding such a meagre compensation. He, therefore, submitted that from the evidence it has been established that there has been longevity in the family of the deceased, that the deceased being a young man, in future he could have better prospects in life and that considering the value of money also the compensation awarded being too low and meagre deserves to be enhanced. He therefore, submitted even if the multiplier of 20 years is applied, the compensation would come to Rs. 36,000/- and after therefrom an amount of 15 per cent is deducted for uncertainties of life in case of a lumpsum payment, even then the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 30,000/-, though he also contended that considering the value of money to-day, there should be no such deduction and in support of his submissions regarding the quantum of compensation, he placed reliance on certain decisions. 6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents contended that the compensation awarded, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, being reasonable and proper, no interference therewith is called for, as the claimants have faild to adduce definite evidence regarding the monthly income of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that as found by the learned Member that the deceased was spending a sum of Rs. He, therefore, submitted that as found by the learned Member that the deceased was spending a sum of Rs. 150/- per month on his family, the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- cannot be said to be so low as from the interest accrued thereon, if the amount is kept in the fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank, it can very well fetch monthly interest of Rs. 150/- and therefore, there being no satisfactory ground made out to enhance the compensation, no interference therewith is called for. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the case law cited, I am of opinion, that the learned Member of the Tribunal has taken all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration while fixing the quantum of compensation, for which he has given reasons, but considering the fact that the value of money has gone down, after taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 5,000/- more so that by way of interest they can get sufficient amount for their maintenance. 8. In the result this appeal succeeds partly and the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to the Appellants being somewhat low is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 5,000/-, i.e. the Appellants shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Respondents and the rate of interest on this amount is modified from 4% per annum to 6% per annum and that the Appellants shall be entitled to recover interest on the amount of Rs. 20,000/- at this rate from the date of the filing of the petition, i.e., from. 14.6.1976. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs, of this appeal. Appeal allowed.