JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey and Usha Shukla, JJ. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 10.1.1989 passed in M.A.C.T. No. 14 of 1987 by Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur. 2. The circumstances in which the accident occurred resulting in death of Laksha Kumar Thakur aged 30 years, the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant No. 2 are not in dispute. The deceased was a teacher and was drawing Rs. 707.30 p.m. The Tribunal after deducting monthly living expenses of the deceased estimated Rs. 6,600/- as yearly dependency wherein by applying the multiplier of 10 calculated the compensation of Rs. 66,000/-. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded under the head of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards other expenses incurred in the other heads of damages. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 91,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged 30, therefore, the multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal did not award any interest under Section 110-CC of the Act which ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Reliance was placed on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and Vimla Gangotia v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1995 ACJ 53 (MP). 4. Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent company supported the award and submitted that the award is not inadequate so as to call for interference. He also submitted that dependency was estimated on higher side. The amount towards personal living expenses of the deceased ought to have been deducted at 50 per cent. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in not applying the multiplier of 16 as deceased was 30 years of age. Applying the multiplier of 16 into multiplicand of Rs. 6,600/- the compensation would come to Rs. 1,05,600/- wherein the amount awarded under the head of consortium of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000 towards general expenses is further added, the total compensation would come to Rs. Applying the multiplier of 16 into multiplicand of Rs. 6,600/- the compensation would come to Rs. 1,05,600/- wherein the amount awarded under the head of consortium of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000 towards general expenses is further added, the total compensation would come to Rs. 1,30,600/- to which the appellants are entitled with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till deposit as interest is necessarily to be awarded under Section 110-CC of the Act. 6. As a result of aforesaid discussion, we direct that the respondent company shall deposit Rs. 1,30,600/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 10.8.1987 till deposit within two months. Of course, the respondent company shall be entitled for adjustment of the amount already deposited by it. If the respondent company fails to deposit the said amount of compensation so enhanced, it shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. After deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the appellants keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). 7. In the result the appeal is allowed with costs. The award passed by the Tribunal shall stand substituted as indicated hereinabove. Counsel's fee Rs. 750/-, if pre-certified.