JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 5.3.1987, in Claim Case No. 40 of 1982, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. 2. Appellant No. 1 is the mother and appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are brothers and sisters of deceased Naresh Kumar who died in motor accident on 20.3.1982 while he was going on a motor cycle which was dashed by truck No. MPS 6001 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The deceased was aged 24 years and was employed as Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Hasdev Canal Project No. 2 and was drawing Rs. 960/- per month. On the evidence adduced by the parties the Tribunal found that because of the sole rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 the accident occurred. As to compensation the Tribunal observed that after deductions of the contributions of provident fund etc. the deceased was getting Rs. 600/- per month cash in hand. As the deceased was working at Akaltara he must be contributing to the family only a sum of Rs. 150/- per month, yearly Rs. 1,800/- wherein a multiplier of 20 was applied, the compensation was calculated at Rs. 36.000/-, on that interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment was further ordered to be paid. 3. Mr. Atul Awasthy, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the contribution to the family kitty estimated is on a lower side. The deceased was in a settled job and was having prospects of advancement in life and career which ought to have been sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. He was the only earning member who was maintaining six members of the family. Even if the net income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 600/- per month the contribution to the family would not be less than Rs. 400 per month, yearly Rs. 4,800/-, applying the multiplier of 20 the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- ought to have been awarded. 4. Counsel for respondents supported the award and has submitted that as the deceased was residing at Akaltara and family members at Rajnandgaon he would not have contributed more than Rs. 150/- per month to the family kitty. 400 per month, yearly Rs. 4,800/-, applying the multiplier of 20 the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- ought to have been awarded. 4. Counsel for respondents supported the award and has submitted that as the deceased was residing at Akaltara and family members at Rajnandgaon he would not have contributed more than Rs. 150/- per month to the family kitty. Counsel for insurer submitted that the liability of the insurer was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. It is clear from the evidence that the deceased was the only earning member who was maintaining the family of six members. Therefore, in such circumstances even though the deceased was staying at Akaltara he must be contributing a bare minimum of Rs. 300/- per month, yearly Rs. 3,600/-. Applying the multiplier of 16 the compensation would come to Rs. 57,600/- to which the appellants are entitled with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. 6. As the liability of the insurer was limited so as to meet the statutory requirement of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurer shall deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 6.9.1982 till deposit less the amount already deposited by it. The balance amount of Rs. 7,600/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till deposit shall be deposited by the respondent No. 2. On deposit the Tribunal shall disburse the compensation to the claimants in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC). 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the award of the Tribunal is modified as indicated hereinabove. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if pre-certified.