JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the award dated 30.8.1995 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow, passed in Claim Case No. 101 of 1990, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,56,000 in all by calculating dependency of Rs. 1,300 p.m. and by applying a multiplier of 10 is awarded. 2. It is not in dispute that Shantilal died in a motor accident. No appeal has been filed by the other side and, therefore, it is also proved that he met with accident and died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1, who was driver and in the employment of respondent No. 2. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. The learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 p.m. and, therefore, assessed dependency at Rs. 1,300 p.m. The age of the deceased was calculated as 45 years and a multiplier of 10 has been applied. 3. It has come in evidence that the deceased was an agriculturist and was holding about 110 acres of land and was also producing and selling milk. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the income of the deceased and the consequential dependency has been assessed on the lower side. It has also been submitted that nothing has been awarded towards the consortium and loss of love and affection. As against it, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has opposed the award. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised an objection that the vehicle was transferred, but has admitted that on the date of accident respondent No. 2 was the registered owner of the vehicle. Counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, on the basis of U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), submitted that even if the dependency is calculated on the basis of the unit system the dependency would come to the same. 5. So far as the initial objection as to the transfer of the vehicle is concerned, we rejected the same at the initial stage itself as on the date of accident respondent No. 2 was registered owner and it appears this point was not raised earlier. 6. 5. So far as the initial objection as to the transfer of the vehicle is concerned, we rejected the same at the initial stage itself as on the date of accident respondent No. 2 was registered owner and it appears this point was not raised earlier. 6. Now, so far as the income of the deceased and dependency is concerned, it was held by the learned Tribunal that deceased was a joint owner along with his two sons claimant Nos. 3 and 4. Since the deceased was eldest member of the family, he must have been managing the whole affairs including the agricultural property and the dairy. If the income of a person of his status holding land as referred to above is calculated on the basis of managerial work it should not be calculated less than Rs. 3,000. Today even a lower division clerk gets more than that. In our considered opinion, therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 3,000 p.m. If the unit system is adopted for the calculation of dependency as there were two adult sons and one minor son in the family and the other adult member is wife of the deceased, therefore, even if the personal expenditure of Shantilal is taken into consideration his personal expenditure would come to Rs. 1,000 p.m. Thus, the dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 2,000 p.m., i.e., Rs. 24,000 per year. The deceased was admittedly aged about 45 years. In such a situation a multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied and if that is applied the amount would come to Rs. 2,64,000. The claimants would be further entitled to loss of consortium and love and affection and loss to his estate at the rate of Rs. 5,000 each which will come to Rs. 20,000. Thus, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 2,84,000. 7. Thus, from the discussion above it is evident that the learned trial Judge has assessed the loss on the lower side and the compensation deserves to be enhanced to that extent. 8. As a result, appeal partly succeeds. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,56,000 to Rs. 2,84,000 for which the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable. 2,84,000. 7. Thus, from the discussion above it is evident that the learned trial Judge has assessed the loss on the lower side and the compensation deserves to be enhanced to that extent. 8. As a result, appeal partly succeeds. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,56,000 to Rs. 2,84,000 for which the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable. The respondents shall further be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till realisation of the same. The amount of compensation shall be equally divided and 2/3rd (two-third) of the amount payable to each of them shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 10 years. There will be automatic renewal of the same for a further period of 5 years. No loan amount against that shall be sanctioned. The claimants would be entitled to withdraw only quarterly interest as and when necessary. Counsel's fee Rs. 500. The amount already paid shall be given credit.