ORDER K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 1.12.1980, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 7 of 1980, whereby the claim of the claimants/appellants has been rejected. 2. According to the claimants, on 4.12.1976 at about 8 P.M the husband of the appellant No. 1 namely Sher Bahadur Singh, while going to attend his duties in Krishi Upaj Mandi, was struck down by truck No. M.P.B. 7399, which was being driven by its driver Ramjan Khan (respondent No. 1). The truck was owned by Mahendra Singh alias Pouja Singh (respondent No. 2) and it was insured with the National Insurance Corporation (respondent No. 3). Sher Bahadur Singh succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. At the time of his death, Sher Bahadur Singh was employed with Krishi Upaj Mandi and was drawing Rs. 150/- per month. He was aged 30 years only at the time of incident. He left behind him, the present appellants as his only legal representatives. The appellants/ claimants claimed Rs. 54,000/- as compensation + Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony-total Rs. 64,000/-. 3. Harnamdas (respondent No. 4) was also added as party by way of amendment because of the objections--Raised by the respondent No. 2 that he is not the owner. But the respondent No. 4 was proceeded exparte after service. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, in which both of them denied to be the driver and owner of the said truck respectively. They also denied any accident having taken place and their liability for payment. 5. The Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) did not deny that the truck No. M.P.B. 7399 was insured with them. But they denied the ownership of the respondent No. 2. They also denied their liability. 6. The Claims Tribunal though held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 8000/- but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not proved that Sher Bahadur Singh the because of the injuries on account of a dash received from truck No. M.P.B.7399. It was also held that it was not proved that the respondent No. 2 was its owner and the respondent No. 1 was driving the truck. 8000/- but dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was not proved that Sher Bahadur Singh the because of the injuries on account of a dash received from truck No. M.P.B.7399. It was also held that it was not proved that the respondent No. 2 was its owner and the respondent No. 1 was driving the truck. It was further held that it was not proved that the said truck was being driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Claims Tribunal has overlooked the material--Both oral and documentary--On record, from which it is proved that the truck was owned by the respondent No. 2 and was driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. In case it was held that the truck was owned by the respondent No. 4, he has not contested the claim and the award should have been passed against him. The calculation for grant of award arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper. It deserves to be enhanced. 8. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is proper and calls for no-interference. 9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) is that it was not proved that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the truck and that the respondent No. 1 was its driver at the time of the accident. In any case, the Insurance Company was not liable. 10. While going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we find that in a joint written statement of the respondents 1 and 2, in paragraph 6, they have denied other facts except that the tuck No. M.P.B. 7399 stands registered in the name of the respondent No. 2. In the written statement it has not been specifically denied that the respondent No. 1 was not the driver of the truck No. M.P.B.7399 except the fact that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. 11. In defence, the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Singh has been examined as No. A.W. 1. He only says that Ramjan Khan is no more his driver. For accident, he states that he has no personal knowledge. 11. In defence, the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Singh has been examined as No. A.W. 1. He only says that Ramjan Khan is no more his driver. For accident, he states that he has no personal knowledge. No other evidence has been produced by any of the respondents. 12. Ganesh Narain Shukla, an eyewitness, was examined by the appellants/claimants as A.W.5, who has stated the number of the truck to be M.P.B. 7399, which had dashed against the deceased Sher Bahadur Singh in his presence. According to him, the truck was being driven rashly and negligently with high speed. Though he could not describe the exact speed of the truck but he states Yet another witness Vivek Singh (P.W.6) states that he knows the driver Ramjan Khan. On 4.12.1976 at about 8 P.M. Ramjan Khan had brought Fishes in the said truck bearing No. M.P.B.7399, which belongs to Mahendra Singh Punjabi, and after unloading the same, returned to Maihar at about 9 P.M., he also had been to Maihar. He saw the said truck standing near Uchehara. On enquiry from the driver Ramjan Khan, Ramjan Khan informed him that he had caused an accident near Amarpatan Barrier and he has flown from the place of incident 13. From the above pleadings and proof, we, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the truck was owned by the respondent No. 2 and was driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently at the time of incident. Subsequently, the name of Harnamdas has been added as respondent No. 4 because of the objection of the respondent No. 2 that he was not the owner. Insurance Policy in original has been filed in this case which has been admitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs. In this case, the name of the insured is written as Harnamdas C/O Mahendra Singh, Maihar, District Satna. The said Harnamdas has not controverted this fact. No other particulars are given. It seems that either the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Singh had purchased the truck in the name of Harnamdas or the truck was got insured in the name of Harnamdas by Mahendra Singh. It is not known as to whether Harnnamdas is the son of Mahendra Singh or anybody else. But the fact remains that he has not contested the claim. It is not known as to whether Harnnamdas is the son of Mahendra Singh or anybody else. But the fact remains that he has not contested the claim. Therefore, he is also made jointly liable with the respondent No. 2 as owner of the truck. 14. Now the question remains as, to the awarding of the quantum of compensation in the case of a young person of 30 years of age having the, who was employed as Nakedar in the Krishi Upaj Mandi and was posted at Amarpatan Naka of the Krishi Upaj Mandi and was drawing Rs. 150/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has believed the income but has taken out that the deceased might have been spending Rs. 75/- per month on his family members. The multiplier applied in this case for finding out the compensation payable is 12 and the amount of compensation was calculated at Rs. 10,800/- but Rs. 2,800/- were (sic) on account of the 1/4th share of the deceased in his ancestral agricultural property, to be his expected income from that. The net amount by way of income was Rs. 8000/-, which is very low in the case of loss of a young man of 30 years of age. 15. The appellant No. 1 Mst. Bitola has been examined as A.W.4.. In cross-examination, a question was put to her, in answer to which she has stated that sometimes her deceased husband used to give Rs. 100/- and sometimes Rs. 50/- per month to her. But this does not mean that he never spent any other amount for the bare necessities of the family. So, we take it that he used to pay at least Rs. 180/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and two children i.e. the appellants 2 and 3 aged 6 years and 4 years respectively. It has not come on record that the deceased Sher Bahadur Singh had any bad habits like drinking etc.. Therefore, it will be reasonable to expect that he used to contribute at least Rs. 100/- per month for the family. 16. In one case, the multiplier of 27 was adopted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it was not interfered with by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kaushalya Devi 1987 (Supp.) S.C.C. 81. But this judgment is not a detailed judgment. 100/- per month for the family. 16. In one case, the multiplier of 27 was adopted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it was not interfered with by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kaushalya Devi 1987 (Supp.) S.C.C. 81. But this judgment is not a detailed judgment. The facts are not given except that the multiplier of 27 in that case was held to be justified. In the present case, the deceased was aged 30 years. He would have at least served for 23 years more. His emoluments would have increased and he would have earned more. But we take the multiplier of 20 to be justified in the present case. Therefore, the annual contribution of the deceased comes to Rs. 1200/- per month multiplied by 20-- Rs. 24000/-. It was argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company that there should be deductions in cases of payment of lump-sum amount but the rule of deduction is not always necessary and mandatory. Here we do not think it proper to deduct anything from the amount of Rs. 24,000/-, which is payable to the claimants/appellants. 17. So far as interest is concerned, looking to the trend in such cases and specially the judgment of the Apex Court Chameli' Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation followed in Jagbir Singh v. G.M., Punjab Roadways we grant interest to the claimants at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application. 18. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants/claimants are awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application against the respondents, who are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Counsel's fee as per schedule, is certified.