JUDGMENT 1. - The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the Award dated 4.9.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 71,400/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.1987 at about 8.30 a.m. while deceased Bholasingh was going from Chak 365 Head to Pathrawa by driving Jeep No. RRC 1772, the Bus No. RSC 7809 of Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation coming from opposite side dashed against his Jeep. The driver of the Bus was respondent No. 1 Ramsingh, who was driving it very rashly and negligently. The collision of the Bus and the Jeep was so severe that the Jeep was totally smashed and Driver Bholasingh inclusive of six others died on the spot. 3. Thereafter, the claimants have filed a Claim Petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (for short the Tribunal') claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,62,000/-. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of his death, Bholasingh was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs. 650/-per month. He used to spend a sum of Rs. 500/- in his family. 4. The above claim petition was contested by the respondents. Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. The evidence was also recorded. Thereafter, arguments were heard and ultimately, the learned Tribunal vide its Award dated 4.9.1993 allowed a sum of Rs. 71,400/- as compensation to the claimants-appellants who are wife and minor daughter of deceased -Bholasingh. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus by its Driver Ramsingh. The Bus was driven at a very excessive speed and its Driver could not control it and thus, negligently dashed it against the Jeep. As a result of that, Bholasingh died on the spot. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of Bholasingh to be Rs. 650/-. However, the learned Tribunal held that deceased Bholasingh used to spend only Rs. 250/- per month on his wife. Claimant Guddi was born after the death of deceased Bholasingh. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal determined the annual dependency at Rs. 650/-. However, the learned Tribunal held that deceased Bholasingh used to spend only Rs. 250/- per month on his wife. Claimant Guddi was born after the death of deceased Bholasingh. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal determined the annual dependency at Rs. 3,000/- per year and after applying the multiplier of 36, it determined a sum of Rs. 1;08,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Since the above amount was being paid as a lump sum, 20% of the above amount of compensation was also ordered to be reduced from it. Thus, the learned Tribunal determined the Award of Rs. 86,400/- in favour of the claimants. The interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was also ordered to be deducted from this amount of compensation. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 71,400/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants. 6. Being dissatisfied with the above Award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants and Mr Sangeet Lodha the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal though assessed the monthly income of deceased Bholsingh at Rs. 650/- per month, it has erred in holding that deceased-Bhola Singh used to spend a sum of Rs. 400/- on himself and Rs. 250/- on his wife as claimants-Guddi was born after his death. According to him, the learned Tribunal ought to have determined 1 /3rd amount of his monthly income as the dependency of the claimants. He has further contended that according to the latest view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, maximum multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in the instant case. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has further erred in not awarding claim for consortium and funeral charges to the claimants-appellants. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has relied on the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (5) JT (SC) 356 , wherein in para 15 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the Unit theory. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has relied on the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (5) JT (SC) 356 , wherein in para 15 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the Unit theory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming was to break up the family into Units, taking two Units for an adult and one Unit for a minor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that maximum multiplier of 18 can be applied in such cases. He has, therefore, contended that since claimant Guddi was born after the death of - Bholasingh and his wife claimant Sukhpal Kaur will be treated as two Units each. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned Award. 10. I have considered the rival contention made at the Bar. In India, normally when concrete proof is available on record regarding monthly income, ⅓rd amount thereof is being deducted from that amount treating it that it might have been spent by the deceased on himself. In the instant case, at the time of death of Bholasingh, claimant Guddi was not born and thus, the Unit theory will have to be applied in this case. When we apply the Unit theory as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra's case (supra) the annual dependency of the claimant would come to Rs. 4,800/- per year and if we apply the multiplier of 18, then the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 86,400/-. Since the claimants have been deprived of love and affection of the deceased, they are further entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as consortium. They are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as funeral charges. Thus, in my opinion the claimants-appellants are entitled to a total claim of Rs. 1,03,400/-. 11. For the reasons stated here in above this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Award dated 4.9.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar is modified to this extent that the claimants-appellants are entitled to total claim of Rs. 1,03,400/-. 1,03,400/-. 11. For the reasons stated here in above this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Award dated 4.9.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar is modified to this extent that the claimants-appellants are entitled to total claim of Rs. 1,03,400/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to claim interest on the above amount of claim from the date they filed their claim petition before the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum. 12. However, in order to safeguard the interest of claimants and further to rationalise the expenses of the claimants, the learned Tribunal is directed to work out a scheme regarding payment of claim to the claimants. The learned Tribunal would ascertain the needs of the claimants and in that proportion, would order for the payment of claim in cash. The remaining amount would be got deposited by it in the Fixed Deposit Accounts of a Scheduled Bank of the claimants for the varying period with a note that the same may not be encashed before maturity except with the order of the Court. The learned Tribunal would work out the said scheme after ascertaining the needs of the claimants and for this purpose, the learned Tribunal may summon the claimants in Court. This will be done as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of this Judgment.Appeal allowed. *******