A. K. MATHUR, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is the misc. appeal directed against the award dated 6. 7. 1992 given b'y;the II, Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in claim Case No. 27 of 1991 whereby the learned Tribunal has grantpd a sum of rs. 51,840 to the claimants for the death of deceased Jhaduram. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise ,to this appeal are that on 11. 2. 1991 at about 11 a. m. , the deceased Jhaduram was going on his cycle from Pachpedi to the. city. When he reached near Shukla Petrol Pump, a truck bearing No. NIT 9016 driven by non-applicant no. 1 Pagal Raj came in a rash and negligent manner from Dhamtari side and it struck against the deceased Jhaduram as a result of which he died on the spot. Therefore, the present claim petition was filed by thefather and mother of the deceased. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the age of the deceased was 17 years, he was doing the job of tailor and earning a sum of Rs. 800 per month. It is alleged that he was als9 appearing in 10th class examination. It is alleged that the deceased was giving a sum of Rs. 600 to his parents and a sum of rs. 200 was being spent by him on himself. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 towards compensation. The claim was contested by the non-applicants who denied that the vehicle was being driven in a rash, and negligent manner and that the claimants are not the heirs of the deceased Jhaduram. The nonapplicants also contested that the deceased was not 17 years of age nor was he earning rs. 800 per month. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues and after recording necessary evidence came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. However, so far as dependency is concerned, it was found that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 400 per month and he Was giving rs. 300 for maintenance of family. The learned Tribunal also found that the deceased was aged 17 years. On that basis, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the compensation as rs. 300 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 400 per month and he Was giving rs. 300 for maintenance of family. The learned Tribunal also found that the deceased was aged 17 years. On that basis, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the compensation as rs. 300 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 57,600. The Tribunal deducted 10 per cent out of that amount on the ground that the amount was paid in lump sum reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 51,840 and interest was awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i. e. , 19. 3. 1991. Aggrieved by this award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for suitable enhancement of compensation. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged 17 years and met with an accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the non-applicant no. 1 driver. Now question is what is the dependency of the parents on the deceased. According to the evidence led by the claimants, the deceased was working as a tailor and was earning Rs. 800 per month. The learned Tribunal reduced the amount to rs. 400. The accident took place in 1991 in which deceased died. It is unthinkable that a man who was earning Rs. 400 or rs. 800 in 1991 would have continued to earn the same amount in future. In the present days of escalation of prices and rising price index, it is unthinkable that the deceased would have continued to earn only rs. 800. It is legitimate to infer that a man who was alleged to be earning Rs. 800 per month (Rs. 400 assessed by the learned tribunal) would have increased his earning to Rs. 1,000 if he had been alive. Hence, we assess that the income of the deceased would have increased to Rs. 1,000 if he had lived. Taking the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1,000, approximately a sum of Rs. 300 would have been spent by him on himself and accordingly dependency comes to Rs. 700 per month, i. e. , rs. 8,400 per annum. Age of the deceased at the time of death was 17 years but the age of his father Was 55 years and that of his mother 52 years. 1,000, approximately a sum of Rs. 300 would have been spent by him on himself and accordingly dependency comes to Rs. 700 per month, i. e. , rs. 8,400 per annum. Age of the deceased at the time of death was 17 years but the age of his father Was 55 years and that of his mother 52 years. Therefore, it would be just and proper to apply multiplier of 11 in the instant case. We thus work out the compensation on the above basis to rs. 92,400. No amount for the funeral expenses had been awarded by the learned tribunal. We, therefore, award a sum of rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and rs. 5,000 towards loss to the estate. Total amount comes to Rs. 99,400. We make it round figure of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh ). The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition. 6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) and award interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. The respondents/non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (non-applicant No. 3 ). Therefore, the non-applicant No. 3 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation within four months, failing which the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .