JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by claimants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been directed against the award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur on 23.4.1991 in claim petition no. 172/87 for enhancement of compensation. 2. The accident had taken place on 19.9.1987 at about 11.00 a.m. in front of the bungalow of the Registrar of the High Court at Jodhpur. The claimants' case was that Puna Ram was driving Oil Tanker bearing no. RSN 9933 rashly and negligently and he struck Hero-Magestic Auto Cycle on which Swtantra Kumar was sitting on the pillion and which was being driven by Hukmichand. As a result of the accident, Swatantra Kumar fell down and died. In the written statement, the accident was not disputed. However, it was stated that the accident had occurred because of the negligent driving of Hero Magestic by Hukmichand. It was further stated that Hukmichand had dashed against the Tanker from behind. The Insurance Company admitting that Tanker was insured, raised certain legal pleas. The Tribunal framed six issues. Snehlata claimant entered into the witness box and examined PW 2 Hukmichand, PW 3 Shyamlal, PW 4 Prem Singh, PW 5 Dr. Mahaveer Chand, PW 6 Kalu Ram, PW 7 Ratan Singh, PW 8 Surveer Mehta and PW 9 Naval Kishore. No evidence was led in rebuttal. The Tribunal after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 2,73,000. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and higher multiplier should have been applied looking to the young age of the deceased. 5. On the other hand contention of the owner-respondent was that adequate compensation has been awarded. His further contention was that the entire amount should have been made payable by the Insurance Company. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The factum of accident was not disputed. The Tribunal after scrutinising the statements of the witnesses has rightly held that accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tanker by Puna Ram. The Tribunal has further held that loss of dependency was Rs. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The factum of accident was not disputed. The Tribunal after scrutinising the statements of the witnesses has rightly held that accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tanker by Puna Ram. The Tribunal has further held that loss of dependency was Rs. 1,000/- per month and calculating loss of 12 months and multiplying by 22, figure of Rs. 2,64,000/- was arrived at. To this, amount was added in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- each to the minor sons of the deceased for the loss of love and affection. 7. In my opinion, the amount determined cannot in any manner be said to be inadequate. The deceased was only a clerk drawing a sum of Rs. 1,886/- per month. He could earn for 22 years more as he was already 36 years of age at the time of accident, therefore,'the multiplier of 22 cannot be called inappropriate in this case. The Tribunal has rightly held that deceased could not spend more than of Rs. 1,000/- on his family. That being so, the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be called inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has also awarded to the children some amount for the loss of love and affection and also to the widow for the lost of consortium. 8. Of course, in the case of Kerala State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Sushama Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where there is stable income, the present income of the deceased should be doubled to calculate the loss of dependency. In this particular case, it will not make much difference if the present income of the deceased is doubled. In that case, the multiplier will be much less than 22. Thus, no case of interference by this Court is made out. 9. The statutory liability of the Insurance Company is only Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable for more amount as it is not the case of the owner that extra premium was paid. 10. That being so, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******