JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9-2-1983 of the IIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore passed in Claim Case No. 202/80 whereby the appellants have been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,400/- for the death of Hemraj who was working as a peon in the Transport Department. 2. The brief history of the case is that on 19.8.80 Hemraj who was working as a peon with the R.T.O., Indore was going towards the residence of the then R.T.O. This truck No. C.P.F. 7455 driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 1 came from behind and dashed against Hemraj who died on the spot. The impact was so severe that the body was cut into three pieces. At the time of this accident the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. The matter was reported to the Police. The case was registered against the driver. There after these appellants (claimants) who are the widow and sons of deceased Hemraj filed this petition and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The respondent-non-applicants denied the claim of these claimants including the rash and negligent driving. However, after trial learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver-respondent No. 2. 4. The earning of deceased Hemraj was estimated to Rs. 400/- per month. However, the dependency of the family was estimated to Rs. 150/- per month. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 8 and awarded the amount referred to above. Hence this appeal for enhancement of the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the dependency of the family ought to have been estimated atleast to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month. It has also been submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 100/- per month by doing some extra work. 6. As against it learned Counsel for respondent has submitted that the deceased was in government service. No evidence has been shown that he has taken permission for working with some other person. Learned Counsel thereafter submitted that the dependency estimated appears to be correct. 7. 100/- per month by doing some extra work. 6. As against it learned Counsel for respondent has submitted that the deceased was in government service. No evidence has been shown that he has taken permission for working with some other person. Learned Counsel thereafter submitted that the dependency estimated appears to be correct. 7. Now so far as the extra income of the deceased Hemraj is concerned, that has rightly not been accepted by the learned Tribunal as the deceased was a government servant at the time of accident, no letter of permission for undertaking extra work has been produced. As such the same has not rightly been accepted. 8. Now so far as the dependency of the claimants is concerned, the accident occurred in the year 1980, the consumer-goods were slightly cheaper at that time. Though it is also true that since the deceased belonged to a working class it is quite possible that the claimants including the present widow-claimant appellant No. 1 may also have been working individually. However, if it is accepted that Hemraj was expending 50% amount on his person then too he must have been spending 50% on his family or may have been saving that amount. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the dependency ought to have been estimated at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. 9. Now so far as the multiplier of 8 is concerned that appears to be correct. The deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident. He may have worked further for a period of five years as the age of retirement of 1 Vth class employees is 60 years. Taking his working capacity further for a period of three years has been added to the multiplier. 10. This may not be out of place to mention here that the claimant-appellant No. 1 must be getting a family pension also. 11. Thus, this amount comes to Rs. 19,200/-. The claimant-appellant No. 1 is further entitled for the loss of consortium to a tune of Rs. 1000/- only. 12. As a result the appeal succeeds and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 20,200/-. The claimant-appellants are entitled for interest@ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim-petition till realisation as claimed by the appellants. The respondents shall bear their own cost and shall pay the cost of appellants also. 1000/- only. 12. As a result the appeal succeeds and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 20,200/-. The claimant-appellants are entitled for interest@ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim-petition till realisation as claimed by the appellants. The respondents shall bear their own cost and shall pay the cost of appellants also. Counsel's fee Rs. 400/- if certified.