JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of deceased Satish Chandra Jain, who died in a motor accident on 31.1.1992, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim case on 12/92 on 30.4.1996. The admitted facts are that on 31.1.1992, jeep No. MP07-M-3741 was being driven by Satish Chandra Jain. In this jeep, besides Satishchandra Parmalsingh, Padamsingh and Tulsiram were also sitting. It was coming from Morena to Gwalior. While the jeep was so coming, about two kilometers north near police station Bahodapur, the jeep met with an accident with truck No. DIG 3288. The truck was being driven by Mansingh, respondent No. 1 and was owned by Rambahadursingh, respondent No. 2. It was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. the respondent No. 3. Satishchandra died on the spot. Other sustained injuries. The Claims Tribunal found that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. As a result of the injuries sustained, Satishchandra Jain, driver of the jeep died on the spot. It also held that deceased Satish Chandra was earning Rs. 800/- per month. The monthly dependency was assessed at Rs. 650/-. Applying the multiplier of five, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 39,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The counsel for the appellants, contended that the award is much on the lower side. Multiplier of five has been wrongly applied. He further contended that multiplier of eleven ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. Counsel has relied upon 1996 (I) ACJ 336 (New India Insurance Co. v. Bafatbai & Others), in which multiplier of ten was applied. He also relied on Section 163A, Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Basing on this Second Schedule, it was argued that deceased Satish Chandra was found to be 50-55 years of age at the time of his death, and as it was also argued that no funeral expenses and consortium were awarded by the Tribunal. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and having perused the record, in the opinion of this Court, there is great force in the arguments raised by the counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and having perused the record, in the opinion of this Court, there is great force in the arguments raised by the counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants. The multiplier in this case, ought to have been eleven and not five. Accordingly, by applying the multiplier of eleven, the amount comes to Rs. 85,800/-. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,000/- by way of funeral expenses. The claimant-widow is also entitled to consortium which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. In this way, the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 92,800/- by way of compensation for the death of Satishchandra Jain. The respondent No. 5 by filing cross-objections has submitted that it had paid Rs. 12,500/- to the claimants by way of no-fault liability whereas the liability has been fastened on the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 5 as such prayed for' its refund. A perusal of the award indicates that the liability was fastened on the respondent No. 3. As such, the cross-objections are allowed. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal as also the cross-objections are allowed to the extent indicated above. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 92,800/- as compensation for the death of Satishchandra Jain alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claims petition. On the respondent No. 3 depositing the above amount for being paid to the claimants in the Tribunal, the amount of Rs. 12,500/- paid by the respondent No. 5 on account of no-fault liability shall be refunded to respondent No. 5. The appellants are entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000/- from the respondent No. 3.