JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 4-3-1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur by which the respondents were awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 42,500. The respondent have,also filed cross-objection dated August 29, 1987 against the award and have prayed for enhancement of the compensation. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this appeal that the deceased Salim S/o respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was travelling in tractor on payment from Dholpur to Bari. On the way, the tractor met with an accident in which deceased Salim died. After recording the evidence of both the parties the learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 500 for funeral expenses totalling to Rs. 42,500 in all. 2. The main contention of the learned Counsel Shri K. C. Sharma appearing for the appellants is that the trial Court has erred in applying multiplier of 38 years and should have applied multiplier of 20 years only even though admittedly the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. It is contended that no evidence medically or otherwise has been produced to establish that the grand-father or grand-mother of the deceased lived upto a particular age which may be taken to be equating factor for fixing up for a span of life of the deceased Saleem. It is also contended that the trial Court has erred in holding that apart from Rs. 100 salary that the deceased was earning as Chowkidar from Post and Telegraph department, he was also earning Rs. 5.75 ps. per day while working on daily wages basis in Telephone department for pulling the wires. This is therefore urged that the income should not have taken into account while considering the monthly income of the deceased. 3. The learned Counsel Shri R. D. Rastogi appearing for the respondent before starting the arguments brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 1 Hussain has expired recently. However, since the mother of the deceased, respondent No. 2 and wife of the deceased respondent No. 3 are already on record and therefore, it is not necessary to bring on record any more legal heirs for the purpose of deciding this appeal. However, since the mother of the deceased, respondent No. 2 and wife of the deceased respondent No. 3 are already on record and therefore, it is not necessary to bring on record any more legal heirs for the purpose of deciding this appeal. It is contended by the learned Counsel that AW 1 Hussain, father of the deceased Saleem has stated that the deceased was working as Chowkidar during night in P and T department which is sufficiently proved from the documentary evidence on record. He was also working during day on daily wages basis in Telephone department and did work of pulling wire. This work was done by him at Dholpur and used to go from Bari to Dholpur in public transport like bus or tractor every day for doing this work. He has stated that he was earning around Rs. 200 per month for doing this work. It is also pointed out that AW 2 Jagan Nath, who was travelling along with the deceased in tractor when the accident took-place and was also working in Telephone Department on daily wages basis along with deceased Saleem has stated that Saleem was getting Rs. 200 per month for pulling wires and the same amount was received by this witness also for doing the similar job. He has further stated that each of them paid Rs. 2 to the driver of the tractor for travelling from Dholpur to Bari and they preferred to travel by tractor, as the bus charges were Rs. 2.50 ps. per head and the tractor driver accepted to take from them payment of Rs. 2 per head. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the trial Court has erred in relying on AW 3 Shamsudden Sub-postmaster in whose office the deceased was working as Chowkidar at night. This witness has stated that the deceased apart from getting Rs. 100 as Chowkidari charges earning Rs. 5.75 ps. per day for working in telephone department on daily wages basis for pulling wires. It is contended that AW 3 has no personal knowledge of the payment the deceased was receiving on account of his working in Telephone Department and he could be relied upon only regarding the monthly payment received by the deceased for the work as Chowkidar at night in postal department. It is contended that AW 3 has no personal knowledge of the payment the deceased was receiving on account of his working in Telephone Department and he could be relied upon only regarding the monthly payment received by the deceased for the work as Chowkidar at night in postal department. It is, therefore, contended by the learned Counsel that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 340 per month and not Rs. 130 as counted by the learned Tribunal. 4. It is further contended that the respondents are illiterate and uneducated person and it was mistake of their counsel not to have claimed in their petition the compensation regarding loss of consortium for respondent No. 3 the wife of the deceased as also loss for love and affection for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is urged that Rs. 10,000 each may be awarded on each count to the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Rs. 25,000 be awarded to the young widow for loss of consortium. The amount of Rs 500 awarded on account of funeral expenses is too law and be raised to Rs. 3,000. It is further contended that the tribunal should have awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident which has not been awarded and that the tribunal has erred in holding that if the compensation is not paid within four months then alone the respondents are entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount with effect from 15-5-1982. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and gone through the award of the Tribunal and also perused evidence and documents on record. As discussed above AW 1 the father of the deceased has stated that the deceased earned around Rs. 200 per month for working in Telephone Department during day time. AW 2, who was working alongwith the deceased and was doing the same work of pulling wires, has stated that he got Rs. 200 per month and the same amount was received by deceased also every month. In view of statements of these two witnesses no reliance can be placed, in my opinion, on the statements of AW 3 who has stated that the deceased was earning only Rs. 5.70 per day for working in telephone department. 200 per month and the same amount was received by deceased also every month. In view of statements of these two witnesses no reliance can be placed, in my opinion, on the statements of AW 3 who has stated that the deceased was earning only Rs. 5.70 per day for working in telephone department. Evidently this witness has no personal knowledge regarding the earning of the deceased Saleem as AW 2 who was working along with the deceased, doing the same job. Therefore, reliance can be safely placed on the statement of AW 2 which is also supported by AW 1 the father of the deceased person. Therefore, the total income of deceased comes to Rs. 300 per month from which Rs. 100 may be deducted towards expenses in travelling to place of work. Thus the net income comes to Rs. 200 per month. 6. I have held in string judgments, discussing law in details that reasonable criteria to reach the amount of dependency is to deduct ⅓rd of the earning towards personal expenses- Applying tne above principles ⅔rd figure of dependency can be rounded of at Rs. 140 per month. However, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant 25% of amount may be deducted for his personal expenses and reliance in this respect has been placed on Nirmala Sharma and others v. Raja Ram and another, reported in 1982 ACJ p 143 . The deceased was the only son of his parent had married only 1 year and than the accident took place. It has also come in the evidence that bis mother lost her eye-sight on account of death of her only earning son in his family. Regarding the applicability of multiplier of 35, I find that he was a hard working person and it can be reasonably expected that the deceased should have been able to work easily up to the age of 60 years. Therefore, in my opinion, the multiplier of 38 years will be reasonable to apply for the purpose of awarding compensation. Therefore, the amount shall be Rs. 140X 12x38= Rs. 63,840 under this head. 7. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel for awarding compensation on account of loss of consortium of respondent No. 3 wife and love and affection to parents it is correct that no amount has been claimed in the claim petition. Therefore, the amount shall be Rs. 140X 12x38= Rs. 63,840 under this head. 7. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel for awarding compensation on account of loss of consortium of respondent No. 3 wife and love and affection to parents it is correct that no amount has been claimed in the claim petition. However, the respondents are illiterate and uneducated and do not have knowledge of the amount which can be claimed on this account. It is salutary principle of law that no one will suffer on account of any mistake that may be committed by his counsel, more so in proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act which is a piece of social legislation enacted with a view to grant relief to the unfortunate persons who lost their kith and kin in accidents. The deceased was not more than of 22 years and had married only one year before the accident took place. In such circumstances, it is desirable that technicalities of law should be brushed-aside in favour of substantial and effective justice. Respondent No. 3 is a young lady who lost her husband soon after the marriage and I, therefore, awarded Rs 15,000 on account of loss of consortium. It has come on the record that the respondents were so overwhelmingly grieved due to this unfortunate accident in which the parents lost their only earning son, that mother lost her eye-sight. I therefore, award Rs. 4,000 on account of love and affection to the parents. 8. As far as the awarding of interest is concerned, there is no doubt that the trial Court has erred in awarding 12% interest on the amount of compensation if the payment is not made to the respondents within four months from 15-5-1982 the date of award. It is settled law that the interest @ 12% be awarded to the claimants from the date of application for compensation filed in the trial Court. The litigation takes its own time and it is not the fault of claimants if the decision is given few years after the application for compensation has been filed. I am fortified in my view by a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v. L.K. Ratna and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 70 . 9. I am fortified in my view by a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v. L.K. Ratna and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 70 . 9. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall be entitled to get 12% interest on the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal with effect from 15-5-1982 the date on which the application for compensation was filed. 10. In the result, the total compensation payable to the respondents is raised to Rs. 82,840 (Rs. Eighty two-thousand and eight hundred forty only) along with interest as mentioned above. 11. The appeal is decided accordingly with no order as to cost. *******