Judgment Satyeshwar Roy, J. 1. The appellants filed an application under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for compensation for the death in the motor vehicle accident of Sushila Mehrotra. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 29,400.00 against the insurance company, respondent No. 1, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The claimants have filed this appeal claiming that they are entitled to higher compensation. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr. Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, submitted that from Exh. A it will appear that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 1 for the period 8.9.1982 to 7.9.1983 and when the accident took place, i.e., on 6.3.1984, the vehicle was not insured with respondent No. 1, so it was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. 3. Copy of the insurance policy was marked Exh. A in this case. The insurance was valid for the period 8.9.1982 to 7.9.1983. The contention of respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted because it has not filed any appeal or cross-objection and, therefore, the Tribunal has held that respondent No. 1 is solely liable to pay compensation. Further from the records of the Tribunal it appears that notice was given by the appellants to respondent No. 1 to produce the policy along with the renewal slip mentioned in the notice but no reply to that was given by respondent No. 1. The award of the Tribunal fastening the liability on respondent No. 1 cannot be disturbed. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the deceased was Senior District Education Officer and she had still about one and half years service left. It was urged that for the purpose of quantifying compensation, multiplier of ten should have been adopted. Further according to them, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family was Rs. 2,000.00 , i.e., Rs. 24,000.00 annually and multiplying ten times of it would be Rs. 2,40,000.00 . Reliance was placed on Mohinder Singh V/s. Rattan Kaur 1986 ACJ 1083 (P&H). 5. So far the case of Mohinder Singh V/s. Rattan Kaur 1986 ACJ 1083 (P&H), was concerned, it appears from para 9 of the judgment that certain facts were taken notice of by the court, most of which are not available in this case. 2,40,000.00 . Reliance was placed on Mohinder Singh V/s. Rattan Kaur 1986 ACJ 1083 (P&H). 5. So far the case of Mohinder Singh V/s. Rattan Kaur 1986 ACJ 1083 (P&H), was concerned, it appears from para 9 of the judgment that certain facts were taken notice of by the court, most of which are not available in this case. The case of Mohinder Singh (supra), therefore, is of no assistance to the appellants. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal had made an error of record by holding that only one year service was left to the deceased, rather one and half years service was left to her. The submission made on behalf of the appellants appears to be supported by the evidence of the husband of the deceased. It must, therefore, be held that one and half years service was left to the deceased on the date she died. 7. The deceased was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 2,700.00 . Her annual salary, therefore, was Rs. 32,400.00 . In one and half years, she would have earned Rs. 48,600.00 . The Tribunal has held that she would have contributed Rs. 1,200.00 per month to her family. The loss to the family for the death of the deceased was Rs. 21,600.00 . She was in Government service and, therefore, she would have earned pension which would have been about half of her salary, i.e., at Rs. 1,300.00 per month. The total pension comes in one year at Rs. 15,600.00 . Assuming that she would have enjoyed pension for ten years after service, the amount comes to Rs. 1,56,000.00 . Half of it would have been contributed by her to the family, i.e., Rs. 78,000.00 ; if 20 per cent of it shall have to be deducted for lump sum payment, the sum comes to Rs. 62,400.00 . When this amount is added in the salary she would have contributed to the family for one and half year, that is Rs. 21,600.00 , the total amount she would have contributed to family was Rs. 83,600.00 (Sic. Rs. 84,000.00 ). As the Tribunal has held that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 15,000.00 for the treatment of the deceased, the total compensation payable by respondent No. 1 to the appellants is Rs. 98,600.00 (Sic. Rs. 99,000.00 ) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. 83,600.00 (Sic. Rs. 84,000.00 ). As the Tribunal has held that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 15,000.00 for the treatment of the deceased, the total compensation payable by respondent No. 1 to the appellants is Rs. 98,600.00 (Sic. Rs. 99,000.00 ) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. This appeal is, therefore, allowed in part and it is held that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 98,600.00 (Sic. Rs. 99,000.00 ) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation of the amount.