JUDGMENT R. Ramakrishna, J.—This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is by the Estate Officer, University of Agricultural Sciences, who is the 2nd respondent in MVC No. 600 of 1983. The appellant has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The deceased Suryaprakash, husband of the first respondent and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 27.7.1983 at 3.30 p.m. at Jayamahal Road, Bangalore. At the time of the accident the deceased was driving the autorickshaw bearing No. MED 2103. This autorickshaw was dashed by the University bus bearing No. CAA 1084. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal representatives and have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/-. This claim was opposed by the appellant representing the University. 3. The Tribunal has initially considered issue No. 1. By appreciating the materials placed by both the parties the Tribunal came to a definite conclusion that this accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. CAA 1084 and there was no contributory negligence. 4. After holding this issue against the driver of the bus, the Tribunal has proceeded to determine the compensation which the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to. 5. It is contended by the first respondent, wife of the deceased, that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. This fact was supported in postmortem report by the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body. However, the Tribunal by using its own method on the evidence placed by the parties has made a calculation of its own and came to a conclusion that the deceased could have been aged between 30 and 35 years at the time of this accident. 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who have filed cross-objections to this appeal have also filed LA. II for additional evidence to prove the age of the deceased. They have produced a transfer certificate issued by Manjunath Higher Secondary School, Bangalore, where the deceased studied in the middle school where his date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1957. The appellants have not filed objections to this application, since the transfer certificate being a public document it does not require further corroboration. LA. They have produced a transfer certificate issued by Manjunath Higher Secondary School, Bangalore, where the deceased studied in the middle school where his date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1957. The appellants have not filed objections to this application, since the transfer certificate being a public document it does not require further corroboration. LA. II is allowed and the age of the deceased was fixed at 25 years at the time of this accident. 7. The trial court on the basis of the conclusion reached in fixing the age of the deceased has adopted a multiplier of 14. In view of the age of the deceased fixed at 25 years this multiplier is to be reconsidered. 8. Mr. K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has not seriously disputed the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the earning capacity of the deceased and his contribution to the family which is loss of dependency. Therefore, taking into consideration the findings of the Tribunal at Rs. 12,000/- per annum as loss of dependency to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by applying multiplier of 15 the loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,80,000/-. 9. However, the Tribunal having arrived at Rs. 1,68,000/- has proceeded to deduct 30 per cent in the amount due to uncertainty of life. 10. Mr. K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned advocate who has filed cross-objections on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has precisely questioned the finding of the Tribunal in deducting 30 per cent towards uncertainties and according to the learned Counsel the same is not admissible when once the multiplier is adopted to arrive at the loss of dependency. 11. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned advocate as the appellant has failed to establish that this deduction of 30 per cent towards uncertainties of life is legally sustainable. Therefore, accepting the cross-objections filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the order of the Tribunal in deducting 30 per cent towards uncertainties of life is hereby set aside. 12. Having arrived at this conclusion now LA. Ill filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for amending the amount of compensation claimed by them at Rs. 2,00,000/- from Rs. 1,55,000/- is required consideration. It is contended that though the appellants- claimants have claimed Rs. 12. Having arrived at this conclusion now LA. Ill filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for amending the amount of compensation claimed by them at Rs. 2,00,000/- from Rs. 1,55,000/- is required consideration. It is contended that though the appellants- claimants have claimed Rs. 1,55,000/- since their claim petition was pending for nearly 4 years due to inflation this figure required to be reconsidered. Having regard to the circumstances the prayer of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 requires due consideration and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed to amend the total compensation claimed by them from Rs. 1,55,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 13. Having come to such conclusion the following order is made: The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 3.000/- towards funeral expenditure. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/-. In view of the modification in the quantum of compensation the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are now getting a sum of Rs. 62,400/- more as enhanced compensation. Since the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased their interest is paramount consideration while distributing the amount. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be deposited as additional deposit in their favour till they attain the age of 25 years. It is needless to say the interest accrued in the fixed deposit, if necessary, can be withdrawn by the first respondent to utilise for the maintenance and education of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. If such an action does not arise, the first respondent is directed to allow the interest accrued, thereby it will become substantial amount at the time of withdrawal by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The balance enhanced amount of Rs. 22,400 along with interest at 6 per cent and costs shall be paid to the first respondent.