JUDGMENT R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, legal representatives of the deceased Kundan Lal Verma, against the award dated 6.5.1982 made by the Illrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 45 of 1981, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,500/- in respect of the death of Kundan Lal Verma by motor accident. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: On 23.12.1980 at about 1.00 p.m. while the respondent No. 2 was driving the offending truck-tanker in Snehlataganj, Indore, there was a collision between the truck-tanker and the cyclist Kundan Lal who was run over by the truck-tanker died on the spot. 3. On a claim petition having been filed by the claimants against the owner, driver and the insurer in respect of the truck-tanker in question, the learned Tribunal by the impugned award awarded Rs. 12,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal estimated the total value of annual dependency to which the claimants were held entitled as Rs. 30,600/- but the learned Tribunal committed an error in deducting the amount of family pension payable on account of the death of the deceased. Learned counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in Kashiram Mathur v. Sardar Rajendra Singh 1983 ACJ 152 (MP), in support of his submission that no deduction from the amount of compensation payable in respect of the death of the deceased in motor accident is permissible except the amount of ex gratia payment received by the claimants. As such, the family pension payable to the surviving claimants is not liable to be deducted from the sum of Rs. 30,600/- which has been estimated by the learned Tribunal as the value of dependency to which the claimants are entitled. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of consortium in respect of the widow, appellant No. 1, in awarding compensation and has prayed for awarding at least an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on that count. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of consortium in respect of the widow, appellant No. 1, in awarding compensation and has prayed for awarding at least an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on that count. I think the learned Tribunal should have taken into account the aspect of loss of consortium to the widow while awarding compensation to the claimants. In the circumstances, I consider it just and proper to award Rs. 3,000/- for loss of consortium payable to the widow as compensation in addition to the compensation of Rs. 30,600 payable to the appellants-claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal is too inadequate to be just and proper. Accepting this submission of the learned counsel on the score of interest I hold that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to receive from the respondents a sum of Rs. 33,600/- as compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.