JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the impugned Award dated 22-8-1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,000/ - as compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5. 2. The brief facts of this case are that on 11-4-1994 at about 8-00 p.m., deceased Dungararam as Fruit Vegetable, Vendor was returning after selling vegetables to his home with the remaining vegetables placed in his cart. When he reached near College, a Nishan Water Tanker No. DEG-3117 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 6 Lakhsingh came and hit on his back side. As a result of which, Dungararam was seriously injured and later on he succumbed to his injuries. 3. After his death, claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a claim for Rs. 17,16,000/- against the appellants. Claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 are his father and mother respectively and claimant-respondent No. 3 is his wife and claimants-respondents No. 4 and 5 are his son and minor brother respectively. The above claim petition was stoutly resisted by the appellants. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed four Issues. 4. After appreciating the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 Lakhsingh was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted into the accident and eventually in the death of Dungararam. The learned Tribunal further held that at the relevant time, the income of deceased Dungraram was Rs. 40/- per day and out of that daily income, he used to spent Rs. 15/- on himself and used to devote Rs. 25/- per day on the welfare of his family or dependents. Thus, for the purpose of determination of compensation, the annual income of Dungraram was assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per year. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of a 42 and then determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,78,000/-. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, in all the claim of Rs. 3,98,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants-respondents. 5. I have heard Mr. Vinit Mathur and R.K. Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. 3,78,000/-. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, in all the claim of Rs. 3,98,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants-respondents. 5. I have heard Mr. Vinit Mathur and R.K. Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M.L. Khatri for the claimants-respondents and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 42. He referred to the recent case trend of the Apex Court and submitted that the maximum multiplier that can be allowed as per the judgments of the Apex Court is 19. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to controvert the above contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to challenge the daily income of deceased Dungraram but the amount as determined by the learned Tribunal is almost equivalent to the amount which a labour gets as his daily wages. Hence, I am not inclined to disturb the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as regards the annual dependable income of deceased at Rs. 9,000/-. While applying legally permissible multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,62,000/-. The claimants-respondents are also entitled to consortium and loss of love and affection, which I assessed at Rs. 18,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,80,000/-. 8. I, therefore, allow this appeal in part and the amount of compensation assessed is reduced from Rs. 3,98,000/- to Rs. 1,80,000/-. I uphold the order of the learned Tribunal as regards the rate of interest payable by the appellants to the claimants on the above amount. Out of this amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has already been deposited and paid by the appellants to the claimants. However, I order that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each may be paid to claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to claimant-respondent No. 5 through respondent No. 1. Rs. 10,000/- each may be paid to respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively and the remaining amount of award may be distributed amongst respondents Nos. However, I order that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each may be paid to claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to claimant-respondent No. 5 through respondent No. 1. Rs. 10,000/- each may be paid to respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively and the remaining amount of award may be distributed amongst respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in equal share and that amount may be invested in any nationalised Bank by obtaining Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 8,000/- each for both of them for the terms of one, two, three, four, five and six years respectively and the Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs. 7,000/- each be obtained for them for a period of seven years. When these Fixed Deposits become ripe, they may be renewed for a period of five years. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******