JUDGMENT Counsel heard on I.A. No. 79 of 95 for condonation of delay. The appeal is delayed by 48 days. The reason given by the appellant is that earlier this appeal was to be filed by Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate, who expired in-between and after the appellants came to know of his death, they got it filed by another lawyer. In view of the facts stated above there appears to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Even otherwise appellants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are minors. For this reason also the delay deserves to be condoned. As such the application for condonation of delay is accepted. The appeal is condoned. With the consent of the parties the appeal is heard finally. The appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 12.8.1994 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alirajpur passed in claim case No. 1/90 (new No. 51/94) whereby the claimant-appellants have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 59,000/- in all. The brief history of the case is that Sursingh who was the bread-earner of the family died in a motor accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle by respondent No. 3 driver, who was in the employment of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 750/- per month. The deceased was also running a kirana shop and was doing agricultural work. So far as the agricultural property is concerned that must have been inherited by the claimants. The deceased was also earning from some trees-mango and mahua. That must also have been inherited by them. As such no loss is occasioned thereby, excepting the loss of physical labour which the deceased must have been putting for getting the production. The deceased was a small kirana shop owner and a petty agriculturist. Under these circumstances the assessment of income made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be less. The income assessed, thus, appears to be just and proper. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 750/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per year, after deducting 1/3 rd. amount towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the dependancy of the family would come to Rs. 6,000/- p. year. The income assessed, thus, appears to be just and proper. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 750/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per year, after deducting 1/3 rd. amount towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the dependancy of the family would come to Rs. 6,000/- p. year. The deceased was aged about 42 to 45 years as the widow of the deceased is shown to be of 40 years of age. Under these circumstances maximum multiplier of 12 may be applied (reference may be had to the case reported in 1994 MPLJ, 520, M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas). Thus the general damages would come to Rs. 72,000/-. The claimants would further be entitled for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- in all would be proper to be awarded on that heading. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 82,000/-. The claimants would also be entitled to get 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same. As a result the appeal partly succeeds. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 59,000/- to Rs. 82,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The claimant appellants shall be entitled for the cost of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-. After the compensation is realised 50 per cent of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 10 years in the name of claimants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in equal shares. No loan shall be granted against that amount. The claimants shall be entitled for quarterly interest only. The rest of the 50 per cent may be paid to all the claimants jointly.