J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this appeal, under Section 110-D of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (act for short, hereinafter), the appellant has challenged the judgment and award, refusing the compensation to the extent of Rs. 8,000. 00. Thus, the appellant/original claimant, has filed the present appeal for an additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal, shortly stated, are as follows : ( 3 ) THE present appellant is the original claimant, present respondent No. 1 is the original opponent no. 1, present respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 2 and present respondent no. 3 is the original opponent No. 3 and, they are, hereinafter, referred to as claimant, opponent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 4 ) THE claimant filed an application for compensation of Rs. 15,000. 00 under Section 110-A of the Act for the death of his wife, Bai tidi, on account of a road accident, before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (tribunal for short, hereinafter), at Nadiad. The accident in question occurred on 26-2-1977, at about 8 a. m. Deceased Bai Tidi was travelling in a trolly attached to the tractor. The offending tractor was driven by original opponent No. 1. It was alleged by the claimant that the tractor was driven by opponent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was thrown out from the trolly and she was crushed under the tractor. She had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. According to the claimants case, the deceased was doing labour work and she was earning Rs. 5. 00 to Rs. 7. 00 per day. Therefore, the claimant claimed Rs. 15,000. 00 by way of compensation. ( 5 ) OPPONENTS appeared and resisted the claim petition. It was denied that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving. It was further contended that the deceased was negligent. The claim amount was, seriously, challenged. The insurance company had raised a contention that it would not be liable for payment of compensation as the offending tractor was not to be used for carrying passengers. It was denied that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving. It was further contended that the deceased was negligent. The claim amount was, seriously, challenged. The insurance company had raised a contention that it would not be liable for payment of compensation as the offending tractor was not to be used for carrying passengers. ( 6 ) ON the appraisal of the evident, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the deceased had died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending tractor. It also found that the deceased was doing labour work. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 100. 00. After deducting amount of Rs. 75. 00 per month for the expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 25. 00 per month. Thus, the Tribunal was pleased to assess the annual utility to the tune of Rs. 300 (25 x 12 = 300 ). The Tribunal was pleased to adopt 12 multiplier. Therefore, the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 300 x 12 = 3600/ -. The claimant was also awarded rs. 3,000/- by way of compensation for loss of expectation of life. The Tribunal also awarded rs. 253/- by way of medical expenses. In the result, the Tribunal was pleased to award total sum of Rs. 6853. 00 in all by way of compensation and it was observed by the Tribunal that original opponent No. 1 was the driver, original opponent No. 2 was the owner and original opponent No. 3 was the insurer, at the relevant time, in respect of the offending vehicle. Thus, the amount of compensation was awarded in favour of the claimant/husband against all the opponents with running interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Against the claim of Rs. 15. 000. 00 the Tribunal, thus, was pleased to award, in all, a sum of Rs. 6853. 00 for the unfortunate, demise of the wife of the claimant in a road accident, in claim petition No. 244/77 filed by the husband/claimant. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, to the extent of rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,000. 6853. 00 for the unfortunate, demise of the wife of the claimant in a road accident, in claim petition No. 244/77 filed by the husband/claimant. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, to the extent of rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,000. 00 the original claimant/ husband has, now, come up before this Court, in this appeal, challenging its legality and validity. ( 8 ) NO cross objections are filed. ( 9 ) THE controversy in the present appeal is circumscribed to a very narrow compass. The claimant/husband claimed compensation of Rs. 15,000. 00 for the, untimely, demise of his wife in an unfortunate accident. He was only awarded rs. 6853/- and the claim for the remaining amount of Rs. 8147. 00 was rejected. However, the appellant/original claimant has restricted his claim only to the extent of Rs. 8000. 00. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration of this court, at this stage, is as to whether the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of Rs. 8000. 00 by way of compensation. It appears from the judgment and award under challenge that the Tribunal has taken a conservative view in making assessment for awarding compensation in the light of the evidence on record. The deceased, Bai Tidi, the wife of the claimant, was aged about 22 years. She was doing labour work. The Tribunal found that the deceased would be earning Rs. 100. 00 per month. The finding of the Tribunal on this point appears to be erroneous. The husband of the deceased had stated that the deceased was earning of Rs. 5. 00 to Rs. 7. 00 per day. Even if the average of minimum and maximum income per day, stated by the husband, is taken, then also it would come to Rs. 180. 00 per month by way of income of the deceased. Secondly, the Tribunal has also erred in not considering the prospects in future, i. e, future earnings of the deceased. On advancement of age, it could safely be inferred that the deceased would have earned something more than Rs. 180a per month. Even the help of the deceased as housewife to the claimant/husband, in running the house, could have also been considered while making assessment for compensation. The approach of the Tribunal was not only conservative but also erroneous to the extent. 180a per month. Even the help of the deceased as housewife to the claimant/husband, in running the house, could have also been considered while making assessment for compensation. The approach of the Tribunal was not only conservative but also erroneous to the extent. The Tribunal has also erred in applying only 12 multiplier instead of 15 years. In a case of fatal accident like one on hand, when the age of the deceased is about 22 years, then the multiplier of at least 15 could be safely be accepted. Even while taking again a conservative view, the income of the deceased can safely be assessed minimum at Rs. 200. 00 per month and assuming that the deceased would have spent for herself about 50% of that amount, her contribution to common family fund would not be less than Rs. 100. 00 per month. Thcrefore, the monthly utility of the claimants wife-deceased Bai Tidi can safely be assessed at Rs. 100. 00 per month, and therefore, the annual utility would come to Rs. 100 x 12 = 1200/ -. Applying the multiplier of 15, in the present case, the minimum amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1200 x 15 = 18,000. The tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,000. 00 by way of loss of expectation of life. If this amount is added to the amount of compensation of Rs. 18,000. 00 it would come to Rs. 21,000. 00. The question whether the amount of compensation for loss of expectation of life was proper or not, whether the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was proper or not need not to be examined at this stage since the appellant/claimant has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 8,000. 00. ( 10 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinbefore and the latest case law on the point, this Court is of the clear opinion that the Tribunal has committed serious error in not awarding full amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 by way of compensation to the claimant. This Court has found that the claimant was entitled at least to an amount of Rs. 21,000. 00 by way of compensation. However, since the appellant/ original claimant has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 8000. 00 only, this Court has nooption but to award only a sum of Rs. 8,000. This Court has found that the claimant was entitled at least to an amount of Rs. 21,000. 00 by way of compensation. However, since the appellant/ original claimant has restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 8000. 00 only, this Court has nooption but to award only a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 by way of additional compensation with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with cost. ( 11 ) IN the result, the claimant/appellant is awarded an additional amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till realisation with costs. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. .