JUDGMENT Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the said amount. The appellants are the claimants being the legal representatives of deceased Shankar Singh. Shankar Singh died at the spot due to the violent dash to his scooter by jeep Regn. No. CIW 7858, which was owned by respondent No.2 and was driven by respondent No.1. The said jeep was insured with respondent No.3. One Deepak Bhadoria was the pillion rider on the scooter. He had also suffered injuries in the accident. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence found that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years and his income was Rs.2,500/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal found the dependency of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month. But the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 for assessing the amount of compensation. The Tribunal also allowed Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents towards the loss of consortium. It is submitted by Shri B.D. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month, when the evidence on record proves that the deceased was earning around Rs. 3,000/- per month. As such, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the dependency of the appellants on the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and should have allowed Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 and further Rs. 25,000/- to appellants 2 and 3, under the said head. Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, supported the impugned award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has fixed the amount of compensation under a reasonable approach, in the facts and circumstances of the case and has, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. We have considered the rival contentions. The respondent Insurance Company has though not preferred any appeal nor has filed the cross-objection, yet it cannot be lost sight of that the learned Tribunal committed an error in law in allowing the amount towards the loss of consortium to appellants 2 and 3 with appellant No. I in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Under the Act, the amount of consortium is payable in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to the surviving spouse. 10,000/-. Under the Act, the amount of consortium is payable in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to the surviving spouse. Respondents 2 and 3 were not entitled to any amount towards the loss of consortium. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is to be deducted from the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of consortium. However, the claimants/appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses from the respondents. Thus, in the sum and substance by adding the total of Rs. 4,500/towards the two heads, amount would come to Rs. 9,500/-including the amount towards the loss of consortium to appellant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate which the appellants are entitled to receive from the respondents. Now, we advert to the question of application of multiplier. Under the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the age of deceased be between 30 to 35 years, the multiplier of 18 is to be used. The learned Tribunal instead of applying the multiplier of 18 had arbitrarily utilised the multiplier of 10. Thus, while accepting the other findings arrived at by the Tribunal which we have found to be just and reasonable only if the multiplier of 18, as provided under the Schedule of the Act, is utilised, the amount would come to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Out of this amount if we deduct the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are held to be entitled to receive a further amount of Rs. 1,43,500/-. In view of the above discussion, the appellants are held to be entitled to an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,24,000/- which would mean that they are entitled to further receive Rs. 1,43,500/- over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants are also held to be entitled to receive the interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum, on the total amount of compensation of Rs. 3,24,000/- from the date of application upto its full payment. Before parting with the order, it may be observed that the appellants of this appeal had proposed that if a further payment of Rs. 1,01,000/- was made in lumpsum over and above the amount of compensation awarded, it would settle the dispute. 3,24,000/- from the date of application upto its full payment. Before parting with the order, it may be observed that the appellants of this appeal had proposed that if a further payment of Rs. 1,01,000/- was made in lumpsum over and above the amount of compensation awarded, it would settle the dispute. The Insurance Company had initially accepted the proposal. In the above situation, the appeal was referred to Lok-Adalat. But before the Lok-Adalat, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 resiled from its stand and submitted that appeal be heard on merits. The matter had, as such, reverted back to this Court for the decision of appeal on merits. If the matter could be compromised, the loss of public money could have been avoided. It would now be for the higher authorities of the respondent Company to find out the defaulting Officer and to take appropriate action against him. On the foregoing discussion, the appeal partly succeeds. The appellants are entitled to receive compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- from the respondents with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of application upto its final payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Company shall bear its own costs and the costs of appellants of this appeal, which we quantity at Rs. 2,000/-. Copy of the order be sent to the Board of Directors of respondent Insurance Company.