JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of MA Nos. 99/90 and 100/ 90. 2. All the three appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 22.12.1989, whereby following Awards have been made in favour of claimant-appellant : MA. No. 68/90 (Claim Case No. 22/89) Claimant-appellant and his two minor children (daughter and son) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest t @ 9% p.a. for the death of his wife Rajkumaribai. MA. No. 99/90 (Claim Case No. 25/89) Claimant-appellants (parents) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 24,000/- with interest (r) 9% p.a. for the death of their daughter Miss Rekha who was Sub-inspector, Police. MA. No. 100/90 (Claim Case No. 24/89) Claimant-appellants (parents) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. for the death of their son Pradeep who was working as a contractor. 3. All these appeals have been filed for enhancement of the Award amount. 4. Brief history of the case is that there was a collision between motor-car No. MPI-7, which was coming from Sirdi to Indore and motor-truck No. CPO-7580, which was coming from opposite direction. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the truck. Respondent No. 2 is the driver of the truck which was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Motor Car was owned by respondent No. 4 Kanhaiya Lal. It was being driven by respondent No. 5 Ramesh and was insured with respondent No. 6 Insurance Company. 5. Rajkumaribai w/o Ramsingh, Pradeep s/o Harish Chandra and Miss Rakha d/o claimant T.T. Kharbadikar died in the accident. The claim petitions, referred above, were filed. The same were resisted by respondents. 6. Learned Tribunal found that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the truck. No fault of the driver of motor-car was found. As such, the liability of payment of compensation was fixed jointly and severally on respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. Hence the three appeals for enhancement of the same. No appeal has been filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and, therefore, finding as to the liability and the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck Babukhan has finalised. 7. Respondent No. 3 has filed a cross-objection challenging the finding and award. 1,2 and 3. Hence the three appeals for enhancement of the same. No appeal has been filed by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and, therefore, finding as to the liability and the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck Babukhan has finalised. 7. Respondent No. 3 has filed a cross-objection challenging the finding and award. However, respondent No. 3 being Insurance Company, cannot challenge the award on the finding of rash and negligent driving and, therefore, the only point that arise for determination in the case, is as to whether Award granted is just and proper. 8. Learned Tribunal has discussed the quantum of compensation in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Award. Learned Tribunal has found that Rajkumaribai was a housewife and a further amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the loss of consortium has been awarded. Rajkumaribai was aged about 40 years. Claimant-appellants No. 2 Priyanka and Abhishekh (claimant-appellant No. 3) are minor daughter and son of claimant-appellant No. 1 Ramsingh and deceased Rajkumaribai. (It is note worthy that Priyanka aged about 13 years had also sustained injuries in the accident and was awarded Rs. 12,000/- as compensation vide Claim Case No. 21/89 decided by the same Award. No appeal has been filed on behalf of Priyanka). 9. Claimant Ramsingh is a Sub-Inspector Police. The persons working in the Police department are required to rush to various places even during odd hours of the night. In such a situation Rajkumaribai (wife of claimant) must have been looking after the family and welfare of Priyanka and Abhishek. The importance of a house wife can neither be undermined nor ignored. The work of a house-wife is more than a maid servant as she is required to look-after the family during day and night both and, therefore, the loss in such cases would be calculated to be more than loss of wages of a labourer. If minimum wages at the time of accident is taken to, be Rs. 10/- per day the loss because of the death of Rajkumaribai will have to be calculated @ Rs. 15/- per day which comes to Rs. 450/- per month and Rs. 5,400/- per year. 10. Looking to the longevity of citizens of this country at least a multiplier of 12 will have to be applied and if the same is applied the compensation awardable come to Rs. 64,800/-. 11. 15/- per day which comes to Rs. 450/- per month and Rs. 5,400/- per year. 10. Looking to the longevity of citizens of this country at least a multiplier of 12 will have to be applied and if the same is applied the compensation awardable come to Rs. 64,800/-. 11. Claimant has lost his wife and he has been put to a loss of consortium. Claimants No. 2 and 3 have lost their mother. Thus, they have been deprived of the love and affection of their mother. In such a situation all the three are entitled to a traditional amount of Rs. 5,000/- each for the loss of consortium and love and affection. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 64,800/- +15,000/- = 79,800/- which may be rounded to Rs. 80,000/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p .a. only. In such cases, interest of 12% from the date of application till realisation of the same ought to have been awarded. In our considered opinion, therefore, the claimant-appellants are entitled to interest @ 12% p./a. from the date of application till realisation, of the same. MA. No. 99/90 12. Learned Tribunal has discussed the quantum of compensation in para 31 of the Award. Claimants here are parents. Admittedly deceased Miss Rekha was working as Asstt. Sub-Inspector Police. Though her age has been shown to be 19 years but taking into account that she must have spent some time in education and, thereafter in training, we estimate her age to be 21 years. 13. It has come in the evidence that she was drawing Rs. 850 / - per month and was handing her whole of money to her parents. Deceased Miss Rekha was a young woman. There was every chance of her marriage and procreation of children. There is no evidence to show that claimants (parents) have no other child including a male child. In a Hindu Society girls do not remain in possession of helping their parents after the marriage. 14. Claimants have stated that in their community the marriage is performed at the age of 28-29; but looking to the age and capacity of deceased it has rightly been found that there were chances of her marriage within five years. In such a situation she must not have been in a position to help her parents beyond five years. 15. The income of Miss Rekha @Rs. In such a situation she must not have been in a position to help her parents beyond five years. 15. The income of Miss Rekha @Rs. 850/- p.m. comes to Rs. 10,200/- per year. If 1/3rd is deducted towards expenditure of Miss Rekha, the dependency of parents comes to Rs. 6,800/- per year and if the same is multiplied by five the amount comes to Rs. 34,000/-. 16. Claimants have been deprived of the love and company of their daughter, and, therefore, they are entitled led to an amount of at least Rs. 8,000/- jointly for the loss of the same. Thus, the total amount awardable comes to Rs. 34,000/- + 8,000/- = 42,000/-. Claimants are further entitled to interest(r) 12%p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same. MA. No. 100/90 17. Learned Tribunal has discussed the quantum of compensation regarding the death of Pradeep in paras 29 and 30 of the Award. The age of claimants (parents) have been found to be 52 and 50 years respectively. This fact has not been disputed. This is also not in dispute that Pradeep was aged 25 years. Claimant Harishchandra (father) has stated that Pradeep was earning nearly Rs. 15,000/- per year and was paying nearly Rs. 50 per day for the expenses and further helping them by clothes and other things to the tune of nearly Rs. 3,000/- per year. 18. Deceased Pradeep was aged about 25 years. There was every chance of his marriage and procreation of children. In that eventuality he must not have been in a position to help his parents much. Claimants here, have got another son also who is working as a Sub-Inspector Police. Thus, they are not wholly dependent on the deceased. Learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency as Rs. 2,000/ - per year and applied a multiplier of 15. 19. In our opinion, learned Tribunal has committed an error while assessing the amount of dependency and in application of multiplier as well. As the claimants were aged 52 and 50 years respectively the multiplier of 8 ought to have been applied. Reference may be had to a case reported in 1994 MPLJ 520, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomes. However, the dependency has been assessed on the lower side. 20. Looking to the status of the family a minimum dependency of Rs. As the claimants were aged 52 and 50 years respectively the multiplier of 8 ought to have been applied. Reference may be had to a case reported in 1994 MPLJ 520, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomes. However, the dependency has been assessed on the lower side. 20. Looking to the status of the family a minimum dependency of Rs. 3,000/- per month ought to have been estimated which comes to Rs. 3,600/- per year which may be rounded to Rs. 4,000/- per year. If the multiplier of 10 is applied the amount would come to Rs. 40,000/-. 21. Claimants have lost their young son and thus, they have been deprived of love and company of their young son who was also an earning member of the family. In such a situation they are further entitled to Rs. 8,000/- jointly for the loss of love and company of their son. Thus, the amount awardable comes to Rs. 48,000/-. 22. Claimants are further entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same. 23. Insurance Company respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objection challenging the finding of rash and negligent driving. As observed in earlier paragraphs, they are not entitled to raise that objection. 24. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has tried to argue in a feeble voice the point of contributory negligence by the driver of the motor-car and partial liability of respondent No. 6 also with whom the motor car was insured at the time of accident but as there is no appeal against the Insurance Company that point cannot be considered and, therefore, no interference can be made on the point of exoneration of respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 from the liability of payment of compensation. 25. As a result all the three appeals partly succeed, as hereunder: MA. No. 68/90 Compensation of Rs. 64,800/- as general damages and Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- to each of the claimants for the loss of consortium and love and affection) totalling to Rs. 79,800/- which may be rounded to Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same is awarded to claimant-appellants. MA. No. 99/90 Compensation of Rs. 34,000/- as general damages and Rs. 8,000/- (jointly) for the loss of love and company (total Rs. 79,800/- which may be rounded to Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same is awarded to claimant-appellants. MA. No. 99/90 Compensation of Rs. 34,000/- as general damages and Rs. 8,000/- (jointly) for the loss of love and company (total Rs. 42,000/-) with interest @ 12% from the date of application till realisation of the same is awarded to claimant-appellants. MA. No. 100/90 Compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as general damages and Rs. 8,000/- (jointly) for the loss of love and company (Total Rs. 48,000/-) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the same, is awarded to claimant-appellants. 26. The cross-objections filed in all the three cases by respondent No. 3 are hereby dismissed. 27. Counsel fee Rs. 400/- in each of the appeals. Any amount paid earlier shall be given adjustment.