JUDGMENT R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 2.8.1986 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 55/83 whereby the appellants claimants have been held not entitled to any compensation in respect of the death of the deceased Baburao who died as a result of the Motor Accident which occured on 8.5.1983 on Subhash Marg. Indore, having been hit by the tempo bearing registration No. CPF. 7760 which was being driven by Santosh, respondent No. 2. 2. The learned Tribunal had passed an interim award dated 1.8.1986 awarding Rs. 15,000/- on the principle of no fault liability under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act But, on the appreciation of evidence adduce^ in the case the learned Tribunal has found that it was not proved that the driver Santosh was driving the tempo rashly and negligently at the time of the accident and as such, the appellants' claim for compensation on the basis of fault has been negatived by the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the award the claimants have filed this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the tempo in question by its driver has not been established in the case. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the learned Tribunal refused to give further opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence on the question of rash and negligent driving of the tempo vide its order dated 2.7.85. The circumstances of the case warrant an inference of rash and negligent driving. The driver of the tempo, Santosh has been examined by the defendant as NAW-1. He stated that the deceased was coming from the front side on a cycle whereas in the written-statement filed on behalf of the driver and the owner it has been stated that the deceased Baburao came running towards the tempo. In cross-examination this witness has staled that he did not notice the deceased from any distance while he was driving the tempo and that it was not correct to say that he was running towards the tempo he has further stated that he did not know whether the deceased came on cycle or running. In cross-examination this witness has staled that he did not notice the deceased from any distance while he was driving the tempo and that it was not correct to say that he was running towards the tempo he has further stated that he did not know whether the deceased came on cycle or running. From this kind of evidence of the driver Santosh, NAW-1, it is clear that his attention was not at all directed towards the road while he was driving the tempo otherwise, he could not have missed noticing the deceased before he was dashed by the tempo. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have held the driver Santosh guilty of rash and negligent driving, applying the principle of resipsa loquitur. Consequently, reversing the finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving of the tempo. I hold that the driver Santosh was rash and negligent in driving the tempo at the lime the accident occured which resulted in the death of deceased Baburao. 4. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the compensation estimated is too inadequate, and that the same deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal having held the earning of deceased Baburao to be Rs. 300/- per month should have assessed the dependency of the appellants who are widowed mother and the widow of deceased as Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 100/- as has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal, having held that the deceased was only 28 years of age at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 20 should have been used for computing the total dependency instead of the multiplier of 16, as has been used by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Tribunal was wrong in making deduction on account of lump sum payment since the deceased being a young man, was expected to have increase in income in future resulting in increased amount of dependency. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in view of the amended provisions in the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, an amount of Rs. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in view of the amended provisions in the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has become pay able in respect of death even where there is no fault on the part of the driver and as such, the minimum value of loss of human life, must be assessed not less than Rs. 25,000/-. 6. Having heard learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that this appeal should be partly allowed. It would be reasonable, in my opinion, to assume that the deceased might have been spending out of his earning of Rs. 300/- per month a minimum sum of Rs. 150/- on the appellant-claimants. The multiplier of 16 applied by the learned Tribunal, however, does not appear to be unjust so as to require any modification. But the deduction made by the learned Tribunal on account of the lump sum payment, does not appear justified on the ground of uncertainties of life. There was every likelihood of the income of the deceased going up and as such, the possibility of increase in income and consequently in the amount of dependency can fairly be assumed to counter balance the factor of uncertainty of life, so as not to warrant any deduction on account of lump sum payment. 7. Accordingly, estimating the monthly amount of dependency as Rs. 150/- and applying the multiplier of 16 years as adopted by the learned Tribunal the amount of compensation thus computed works out to be Rs. 28,800/-. The appellant-claimants are, therefore, held entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 28,800/- instead of Rs. 16,320/- as has been estimated by the learned Tribunal together with interest thereon 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant-claimants are held entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 28,800/- from the respondents who are held jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest 12% per annuum from the date of claim petition till realisation.