JUDGMENT 1. - These four appeals are directed against the common order and award dated 14.9.1988 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur. They raise similar question of fact and law, therefore, these are decided together by this common judgment. 2. Claim petitions were filed by the appellants-claimants on account of the death of the deceased persons in a Motor Accident near Rampuria bus stand near Bagroo on Jaipur- Amer National Highway. The deceased was husband of the appellant claimant No. 1 and son of the appellant claimant No. 2 in each case. According to the claim petitions on 2.11.1984 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased were going in Truck No. RRM 2111 from Jaipur to Ajmer as servant of the contractor. The truck was being driven very rashly and negligently with high speed by its driver. When the truck reached near Rampuria bus stand, another truck No. RSB 525 Came from the opposite direction. Both the drivers of the trucks were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently and as a result of which, there was a head on collusion between both the trucks. Due to this, the deceased persons of all the said four appeal died. The appellants-claimants of the four appeals filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal which passed the award. The appellants-claimants have preferred these appeals for the enhancement of the award. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. The learned Tribunal has assessed Rs. 600/- as the monthly income of the deceased. It has further determined multiplier of 20. I am broadly in agreement with this finding of the learned Tribunal and approve the reasons given by the Tribunal for arriving at the above conclusions. I need not enter upon the reappraisal of the evidence and reiterate the reasons to support the conclusion and finding of the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. I am broadly in agreement with this finding of the learned Tribunal and approve the reasons given by the Tribunal for arriving at the above conclusions. I need not enter upon the reappraisal of the evidence and reiterate the reasons to support the conclusion and finding of the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- p.m. and the multiplier in these cases is 20 because in the case of Girijanandini Devi and Others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124 , the Supreme Court has laid down that where the appellate Court agree with the views and conclusion of the trial court, the former need not enter upon reappraisal of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court and the expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would suffice. I boldly agree with the learned Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 600/- p.m. and the multiplier in the matter should be 20. 5. As against Rs. 600/- monthly gross income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency to Rs. 200/- only. Here, the learned Tribunal seems to have fallen into error because ⅓ of the gross income is generally taken to have been incurred on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, and ⅔ of the gross income is taken as dependency. In this aspect of the matter, the dependency should come to Rs. 400/- p.m. and not Rs. 200/- p.m. as determined by the learned Tribunal. Taking Rs. 400/- per month as a loss of dependency the total loss of dependency with reference to multiplier 20 comes to 400 X 12 x 20 = 96,000/-. The learned Tribunal, however, has assessed the compensation of Rs. 48,000/- only on account of the loss of dependency. Obviously, this requires to be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 96,000/-. 6. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- as a compensation for the loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased. I think this amount is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- only on account of the loss of affection and care to the appellant claimant No. 2. In my opinion, this amount is also inadequate and it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. I think this amount is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- only on account of the loss of affection and care to the appellant claimant No. 2. In my opinion, this amount is also inadequate and it requires to be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, in my opinion, the total compensation should be Rs. 96,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 = 1,16,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 48,000 + 5,000 + 2,000 = 55,000/-, which obviously requires to be enhanced. 7. No other point has been pressed and argued before me. 8. In the result, the aforesaid four appeals are partly allowed. The award of the total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- is enhanced to a total of compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/-. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified in respect of the appellants-claimants of the aforesaid four appeals. Remaining part and other terms and conditions of the award with regard to the interest and mode of payment etc. are maintained. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeals party allowed - Award modified. *******