JUDGMENT In this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimants have called in question the propriety of the award dated 28.2.97 whereby First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Murwara has determined the quantum of compensation at Rs. 79,000/- for the death of deceased Vishram. The facts as have been unfurled are that on 19.6.87 in the morning hours when deceased Vishram was proceeding with his wife Manku Bai with some grocery items in a truck bearing registration No. MPK-3689 it met-with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver respondent No. 2. In the accident said Vishram sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to them. The present appellants as claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35/87 before the Claims Tribunal pleading inter-alia that deceased Vishram was running a grocery shop and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-. It was putforth in the claim petition that on the date of accident he was aged about 40 years and was contributing a substantial sum from his income to the family. They also claimed Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and other losses. In toto, a claim of Rs. 5,80,000/- was putforth before the Tribunal. The owner and the driver remained exparte. The insurer filed its written statement wherein it accepted that the vehicle in question had a valid policy having duly insured with it. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 750/- and after allowing deduction of 1/3rd fixed the contribution at Rs. 500/-. The Tribunal determined the age of the deceased to be between 40 and 45 years and applied multiplier of 12. It also granted Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Computing in this manner, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 79,000/-. Assailing the aforesaid award, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that determination of income as well as monthly contribution by the Tribunal is erroneous inasmuch as there is ample evidence on record to hold that deceased's monthly income was approximately Rs. 2000/- and accordingly contribution should have been fixed after deducting 1/3rd from the said sum. Learned counsel for the claimants has also criticised the finding of the Tribunal with regard to determination of age of the deceased. 2000/- and accordingly contribution should have been fixed after deducting 1/3rd from the said sum. Learned counsel for the claimants has also criticised the finding of the Tribunal with regard to determination of age of the deceased. It is further submitted by him that even assuming that the age determined by the Tribunal is correct, then also multiplier as applied by the Tribunal is not sound. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurer in his turn, has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased and there is no error in it. However, he has conceded that if the age of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal is accepted, multiplier should be 15. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the award. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the evidence adduced by the parties with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. On a perusal of the reasoning of the Tribunal we notice that the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 750/-. Appreciating in proper perspective and taking into consideration the obtaining factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the determination of the monthly income at Rs. 750/- by the Tribunal does not withstand close scrutiny. The plea of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- is also excessive. On proper appreciation of the factual backdrop, the monthly income can be determined to be Rs. 1,200/-. After deducting 1/3rd. which would have been the expected expenses of the deceased, the amount which he would have contributed to the family would be Rs. 800/- per month. Thus, the yearly contribution would have come to Rs. 800 x 12 = Rs. 9,600/-. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration; multiplier of 15 has to be applied. Hence, the compensation on this score, would come to Rs. 9,600 x 15 = Rs. 1,44,000/-. To this Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- are to be added towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. Resultantly, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,56,000/-. The accident has occurred in the year 1987. The liability of the Insurance Company has to be fixed as per the statute, and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-. The insurer shall pay Rs. Resultantly, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,56,000/-. The accident has occurred in the year 1987. The liability of the Insurance Company has to be fixed as per the statute, and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-. The insurer shall pay Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% to the claimants from the date of application within a period of three months from today, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15%. The balance shall be realised from the owner and the driver jointly and severally with the same rate of interest. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs.