JUDGMENT : I.C. Bhatt, J. Before the effective hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought permission to reduce the claim in appeal to Rs. 17,000/- instead of Rs. 27,000/-. The permission is granted. Accordingly, the claim in appeal is restricted to the amount of Rs. 17,000/-. We have also permitted him to amend the claim in this appeal. 2. This appeal arises out of Motor Accident Claim Application No. 591 of 1983. This application arose out of an accident which occurred on 11-1-1982 in the sim of village Jamala on Jamala Chhota Udepur Road. There were several claim petitions and all were consolidated and evidence was recorded in claim petition judgment. The truck involved in the accident was GTB 6564. The said truck was coming from Kanawat Mines to Chhota Udepur. The excavated stones from Kanawat Mines were loaded in the truck and the accident occurred in the sim of village Vasedi on Jamala Chhota Udepur Road. It is alleged that Bai Shamali, Bai Hid and Bai Shanta who were returning after collecting fuel wood were standing by the road side and they were knocked down by the said truck. Bai Shanta and Bai Hiri were crushed under the stones, with the result that they died on the spot. The present claim petition was filed by the husband of Bai Hiri, being' claim petition No. 591 of 1983 for compensation on account of the death of Bai Hiri. The claim that was made was for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency benefit and for loss of income. 3. Issues were raised in this petition No. 591 of 1983, as follows: (1) Whether the applicant proves that the opponent No. 1 drove motor truck No. GTB 6564 belonging to opponent No. 2 rashly and/or negligently and thereby caused death of applicant's wife Bai Hiri? (2) What amount, if any, is the applicant entitled to receive as compensation and from which of the opponent/opponents? 4. On the first issue, the finding is in the affirmative and so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. The claimant has filed the present appeal claiming the balance of the amount of Rs. 27,000/- towards the additional compensation. 5. 4. On the first issue, the finding is in the affirmative and so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, an amount of Rs. 23,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. The claimant has filed the present appeal claiming the balance of the amount of Rs. 27,000/- towards the additional compensation. 5. So far as the question of negligence is concerned, there is no cross-appeal on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, that finding has not been challenged in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, the said finding is confirmed. 6. The only question which remains for consideration is as to what additional amount the appellant will be entitled to by way of additional compensation. In para 7 of the judgment of the trial court, it has been observed that Bai Hiri was doing weaving work at home and was earning about Rs. 200/- per month by doing such work. According to the trial court, in that case she would have contributed Rs. 100/- to the family income and the annual loss to the family of the deceased would be Rs. 1,200/- per year, calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Bai Hiri was 21 years old and looking to the circumstances, the multiplier of 15 years was adopted and that is how Rs. 18,000/- have been awarded on that count. Further amount of Rs. 5,000/-for loss of expectation of life has been awarded and thus, the total amount of Rs. 23,000/- is awarded as compensation to the heir of the deceased Bai Hiri. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the deduction of Rs. 100/- is not justifiable from the facts and circumstances on record and, therefore, full amount should have been calculated at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for calculating the loss to the family income. In our view, at least, the deceased Bai Hiri would have spent something for her expenses for her own personal requirements. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, at least Rs. 50/- should be deducted on that count and hence the balance of Rs. 150/- per month can be taken as a datum figure and can be treated as her contribution to the family income. That would come to Rs. 1800/-per annum and if the multiplier of 15 is adopted, the total would come to Rs. 27,000/-. 50/- should be deducted on that count and hence the balance of Rs. 150/- per month can be taken as a datum figure and can be treated as her contribution to the family income. That would come to Rs. 1800/-per annum and if the multiplier of 15 is adopted, the total would come to Rs. 27,000/-. 8. The trial court has awarded Rs. 5000/- for loss of expectation of life. But in many of cases, we have taken the view that looking to the devaluation of rupee, it should be at least Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, on that count, we would also award Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the total amount which the appellant would be entitled to would come to Rs. 37,000/- out of which deduction has to be made for the amount already awarded i.e. Rs. 23,000'-. Therefore, the balance that will be awarded to the appellant would corns to Rs. 14,000/-. The appellant will be entitled to recover the said amount together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the application till realisation from the respondents. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 states before us that within six weeks the additional amount which is granted in this appeal will be deposited by the Respondent No. 3. 9. As a result, of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and it is hereby ordered that the appellant do recover from the respondents Rs. 14000/- as and by way of additional compensation, together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit in the trial court the additional amount which is granted in this appeal, within six weeks from today. Out of the amount that will be deposited by the respondents in the trial court, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be invested in any nationalised bank by way of fixed deposit for a period of 63 months. The appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accruing due on the same, but shall not be entitled to withdraw the whole or any part of it or shall not be entitled to create any encumbrance thereon during the said period. The Bank also shall not allow him to do so without obtaining the prior permission of this court. Appeal partly allowed.