JUDGMENT 1. - Appeals bearing Nos. 59 of 1985 and 60 of 1985, both arise out of the same award and are disposed of by one judgment. 2. Both these appeals have been filed under section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated November 9, 1984, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. in case Nos. 42 of 1981 and 41 of 1981. 3. It will suffice to state for the purpose of these appeals that appellants filed a claim petition on account of death Of their son Ganesh Ram, aged 25 years, who died on account of accident, held on October 19,1980. Geeta w/o deceased Ganesh Ram did not file any appeal on account of her remarriage after the death of Ganesh Ram. Both these appeals have been filed on question of enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and effect of remarriage of widow on the compensation, no other point is involved in the appeals. 4. Taking appeal No. 59 of 1985. income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 500/- p.m. As earlier stated the age of the deceased was 25 years. Since the wife of the deceased remarried after death of her husband, the Tribunal deducted in all Rs. 340/- on account of personal expenses of the deceased and remarriage of his wife. Therefore, Rs. 80/- each, totalling to Rs. 160/- in all was taken to be the amount of dependency, for both the claimants, i.e., father and mother. The age of appellant Bhanwari Lal, father of the deceased, is 50 years and Mohini Devi, mother of deceased, is 45 years. Keeping in view the age of the parents, multiplier of twenty years was applied for the appellant Mohini Devi, the mother of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the case of Lalita v. Devi Sahai, 1987 ACJ 241 (Rajasthan) , in which it was held that same multiplier should be applied for all the claimants. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the wife of the deceased had also filed claim along with his parents but during the pendency of the appeal, she remarried and on this account the Tribunal has awarded low amount in the award. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the wife of the deceased had also filed claim along with his parents but during the pendency of the appeal, she remarried and on this account the Tribunal has awarded low amount in the award. His contention is that even though the wife has remarried the amount of dependency should, he kept same and the whole amount of dependency should be awarded to the parents who have lost their earning son and bread earner in the family. He has placed reliance on the case of Kasturi Lal v. Prabhakar, 1970 ACJ 1 (MP) . This was a case in which the deceased had father and mother living but father alone filed claim on account of death of his son. The question for determination was whether only half the compensation was admissible to the claimant as the mother of the deceased had not joined in the claim petition for award of any compensation. It was held that the claim applications are filed in a representative capacity by virtue of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and, therefore, full amount may be awarded to the claimant and no deductions should be made on account of absence of mother of the deceased in the claim petition. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that in this case the widow of the deceased had joined the claim petition but married during the pendency of the same and did not appear before the court. However, it is submitted that the total amount of dependency should have been given to the appellants and no amount could be deducted on account of remarriage of the wife of the deceased. The next contention of the learned counsel is that usually ⅓rd amount is deducted on account of personal expenses or the deceased person and ⅔rd is taken to be the amount of dependency for the family members. In this case also, therefore, it is submitted that out of the income of Rs. 500/- ⅓rd amount, i.e., Rs. 170/- only should have been deducted and the amount of dependency Should have been fixed at Rs. 330/-. In this way the contention of the learned counsel is that the whole amount of Rs. 330/-should be available for the appellants to be awarded as compensation. 500/- ⅓rd amount, i.e., Rs. 170/- only should have been deducted and the amount of dependency Should have been fixed at Rs. 330/-. In this way the contention of the learned counsel is that the whole amount of Rs. 330/-should be available for the appellants to be awarded as compensation. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 20 per cent amount on account of lump sum amount payable to the appellants. Reliance has been placed on Inder Lal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Rajasthan) and Prem Chand v. Jasoda, 1985 ACJ 315 (Rajasthan) , wherein it was held by this court that nothing should be deducted on account of lump sum payment keeping in view the fall in the value of rupee and increasing inflation in the country. It is further submitted that the trial court has awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, whereas the claimants should have been awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, which is now usually awarded by this court. Reliance has been placed on Jagbir Singh v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, 1987 ACJ 15 (SC) . in which the apex court has held that the interest should be awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that nothing has been awarded for the loss of love and affection to the appellants, who have lost their earning son in the unfortunate accident. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ram Niranjan v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 84 of 1985, decided on 25.11.1987. 5. Regarding appeal No. 60 of 1985, the contention of the learned counsel is that deceased Sawai Singh, who lost his life in the accident, was thirty years old. He was a Government servant and was drawing salary of Rs. 560/- p.m. The Tribunal has deducted amount of Rs. 170/- on account of personal expenses and kept the amount of Rs. 390/- as dependency for all the appellants. However, in this case also the Tribunal has applied different multipliers to different claimants, which according to the learned counsel should not have been done. 560/- p.m. The Tribunal has deducted amount of Rs. 170/- on account of personal expenses and kept the amount of Rs. 390/- as dependency for all the appellants. However, in this case also the Tribunal has applied different multipliers to different claimants, which according to the learned counsel should not have been done. His contention is that the multiplier of 30 years, which has been applied in the case of Ichraj Kanwar, the widow of the deceased, should also be applied in respect of the other four claimants, i.e., two sons and parents of the deceased person. His next contention is that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- allowed to young widow of the deceased person, aged 27 years, is too small and even though Rs. 2,000/- each was granted for loss of love and affection to each of the sons, nothing was granted on this account to both the parents, who lost their earning son. It is, therefore, contended that both the parents should also be awarded suit-able amount on account of loss of love and affection. It is also contended that 20 per cent was deducted on account of lump sum which is also not warranted in view of the cases of Santosh Kanwar v. Om Prakash, 1986 ACJ 799 (Rajasthan) and Inder Lal v. Narendra Kumar, 1985 ACJ 303 (Rajasthan) , decided by this court. Similarly, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, which should have been awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the compensation application. 6. Even though Mr. H.M. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. insurance company, is not entitled to make submissions regarding amount of compensation still with a view to assist the court in reaching a justified conclusion on certain points, he was permitted to make his submission. It is contended by learned counsel that since in appeal No. 59 of 1985, the widow of the deceased remarried during the pendency of the claim petition itself, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount, which was otherwise payable to the widow of the deceased. It is contended by learned counsel that since in appeal No. 59 of 1985, the widow of the deceased remarried during the pendency of the claim petition itself, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount, which was otherwise payable to the widow of the deceased. It is submitted that dependency amount has to he calculated keeping in view the number of family members and therefore, when the wife remarried during the pendency of the claim petition, she did not appear before the court at all and it is, therefore, evident that she was not interested to claim anything on account of death of her husband. The further contention of learned counsel is that since the widow of the deceased remarried. therefore, she cannot he taken to be member of the family of the deceased. It is, therefore, submitted that since she was no more member of the family, no compensation can he granted on her account to the parents. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel and also perused the award and record of the case. Coming to the appeal of appellant Bhanwar Lal first, it has to be considered whether the dependency amount has been properly arrived at and whether appropriate dependency amount has been fixed for awarding compensation to the appellants. The usual trend for arriving at the personal expenses of the deceased person is to keep the same at ⅓rd of his income. This is not hard and fast rule and can be changed, keeping in view particular circumstances. Recently, in Phoola Devi v. Indrajit Singh, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 139 of 1986; decided on December 7, 1987. L have considered this point in detail and held that it will be appropriate to deduct ⅓rd of the total income towards the personal expenses of the deceased person. The deceased in this appeal was earning Rs. 500/-p.m. and had to support his wife and aged parents. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it will he appropriate to fix ⅓rd of his income,i.e., Rs. 170/- as his personal expenses and therefore, amount of Rs. 330/- can be taken to be amount of dependency for the members of the family. The next question to he considered is whether out of the amount of Rs. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it will he appropriate to fix ⅓rd of his income,i.e., Rs. 170/- as his personal expenses and therefore, amount of Rs. 330/- can be taken to be amount of dependency for the members of the family. The next question to he considered is whether out of the amount of Rs. 330/- nothing should be deducted before the figure of compensation amount payable to the appellants is arrived at, keeping in view the fact that the widow of the deceased remarried during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, even though she initially had joined the array of claimants. I have carefully considered the arguments adduced at bar regarding this question. In Hindu society remarriage of widow is still rare and considered to be taboo even till today. Therefore, if a widow remarries, it is a matter of satisfaction for all concerned but on this account, there is no reason why the other members of the family of deceased should suffer. The deductions may act as impediment in path of encouragement to widow remarriage. Apart from this, the Act is a piece of social legislation which has been enacted with a view to give benefit to the members of the family of the unfortunate victim who lost his life in a sad accident. I am, therefore, of 'considered opinion that it will not be appropriate and justified on any ground to deduct anything on account of remarriage of widow of the deceased and to deny the benefit of the compensation to the ageing parents of the deceased person. If the matter is looked from another angle also, the multiplier to be applied for fixing the compensation to the parents, who are aged 50/45 years, will be different than it would have been in the case of widow, who was only 19 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, when the multiplier itself is reduced on account of age of the parents, there is no reason to further reduce amount of dependency on account of re-marriage of the widow of the deceased. 1, therefore, hold that the Tribunal erred in deducting amount of dependency on account of remarriage of the widow of the deceased person. The third question is regarding uniform multiplier while awarding compensation to the appellants. 1, therefore, hold that the Tribunal erred in deducting amount of dependency on account of remarriage of the widow of the deceased person. The third question is regarding uniform multiplier while awarding compensation to the appellants. This court has been taking consistent view that there should be uniformity in applying multiplier to various claimants. Therefore, in this case it will be appropriate to apply multiplier of 25 years to both the appellants. Another point for consideration is whether compensation should have been awarded to the appellants on account of loss of love and affection also. The ageing parents lost their young earning son and this court has been awarding compensation on this count also. I am fortified in my view by the authority of R.S R.T.C. v. Kivtoori Devi, 1986 ACJ 960 (Rajasthan) , a Full Bench decision of this court in which it was held that compensation on account of loss of love and affection should be awarded. In the same award in another appeal. bearing No. 60 of 1985, the Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs. 2,000/- each to the sons of the deceased, on account of loss of love and affection. I, therefore, hold that appellants are entitled to receive same amount of Rs. 2,000/- each on account of loss of love and affection of the deceased. The Tribunal has deducted 20 per cent on account of lump sum amount awarded to the appellants. This court has been consistently holding that keeping in view the falling value of rupee and rising rate of inflation, it will not he appropriate to deduct any amount on account of lump sum payment of the compensation. I. therefore, hold that no amount shall be deducted from the compensation amount on this count. 8. The last point to be considered is regarding interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. In the case of Jagbir Singh v. General Manager. Punjab Roadways, 1987 ACJ 15 (SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. In this way the appellants shall be entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 330 X 12 X 25 = Rs. 99,000 + Rs. Punjab Roadways, 1987 ACJ 15 (SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition. In this way the appellants shall be entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 330 X 12 X 25 = Rs. 99,000 + Rs. 4,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and also interest as awarded above. 9. Coming to the appeal of Ichraj Kanwar, bearing No. 60 of 1985, the first question to be considered is the application of uniform multiplier. In this case the age of the deceased was 30 years and multiplier of 30 years has been allowed so far as the widow of the deceased is concerned. However, different multipliers from 20 years to 5 years have been applied regarding the other appellants. As stated earlier, this court has been applying uniform multiplier in case of all the appellants. This view was also recently taken in the case of Ram Niranjan v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 84 of 1985, decided on 25.11.1987 , in which this matter has been discussed in detail. The contention of the learned counsel is that the span of life of the deceased may be kept at 70 years, seems to be rather high. 10. I am, therefore. not inclined to increase the multiplier but keep the same multiplier of 30 years for all the appellants. 11. The next question to he considered is regarding the award of compensation on account of loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased, who was 27 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs. 5,000/- on this count. One can easily understand that on account of such unfortunate incidents the life of widow in Hindu society is suddenly thrown into dark-ness and the whole complexion of her life changes completely. Remarriage of widow is still a far cry and such unfortunate victims have to bear the brunt of accident throughout their life. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that amount of Rs. 15,000/- should meet the ends of justice on account of loss of consortium to the widow. 12. Remarriage of widow is still a far cry and such unfortunate victims have to bear the brunt of accident throughout their life. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that amount of Rs. 15,000/- should meet the ends of justice on account of loss of consortium to the widow. 12. The next point for consideration is about awarding compensation to father and mother of the deceased on account of loss of love and affection, which has not been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- each to both the sons of the deceased under this head. I. therefore, hold that same amount of Rs. 2,000/- each be also awarded to father and mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has deducted 20 per cent from the compensation amount on account of lump sum payment, payable to the appellants. I have already discussed this point above and I, therefore, hold that no deductions shall he made on this count. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 10 percent on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. As held above the appellants shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appellants shall, therefore, be entitled to receive Rs. 390 x 12 x 30 = Rs. 1,40,400 + Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 8,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount from the date of filing of the claim petition.13. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.Appeals allowed. *******