BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Murwara, dated 11. 1. 1994. ( 2 ) ON 14. 6. 90, when Panchamlal Gupta (deceased) was sleeping in his house, truck no. MP-19-0550 owned by Shri Refractories industries Pvt. Ltd. , driven by Arun kumar and insured with the Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. smashed the house, resulting in injuries to Panchamlal Gupta, due lo which he died. A case was registered under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code against the driver. ( 3 ) ALLEGATION is that truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver as a result of which accident took place at 2. 30 a. m. ( 4 ) CLAIMANTS are widow and minor sons of the deceased. Panchamlal Gupta was running a shop, doing grocery and readymade garments business. He was 39 years old at the time of accident and was earning rs. 1,500 per month. Family was dependent on him. Total claim for Rs. 11,00,000 has been made. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS submit that no document demonstrating heirship has been produced, the truck was not involved in the accident and the police registered a false case. Driver had just and valid driving licence though it is admitted that the truck was insured with the insurance company. It is also submitted that claim is exaggerated. Defence taken by the insurance company is that the driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. ( 6 ) CLAIMS Tribunal accepted the allegation of claimants and rejected the defence taken by the respondents. Ultimately, compensation of Rs, 92,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment has been awarded. This appeal challenges the award on the ground of inadequacy. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the parties heard, record perused, particularly the defence relating to assessment of compensation since learned counsel for the appellants concentrated his submission on this aspect of the matter coupled with the proper use of multiplier in this case. ( 8 ) AFTER reading the evidence, we find that the claimant Munnibai is not quite consistent in stating about the monthly payment, the deceased was giving to the family out of the income from the business. ( 8 ) AFTER reading the evidence, we find that the claimant Munnibai is not quite consistent in stating about the monthly payment, the deceased was giving to the family out of the income from the business. In claim petition it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. In the statement recorded in the court, at one stage she states that the deceased was earning rs. 500 per month while at another stage she states that the deceased was giving her Rs. 10-20 every day, Rs. 10-20 to the children. She also states that the deceased was earning Rs. 200 per day from the business. Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased, has appeared as a witness. He states that the deceased was earning rs. 2,000-Rs. 3,000 per month. Manoharlal is another witness from the neighbourhood, an associate of the deceased. He states that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000-rs. 2,500 per month. With this kind of evidence, it would be appropriate to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month. Out of it he must be spending 1/3rd on himself leaving the rest for the family. This way monthly dependency would be rs. 1,000, yearly Rs. 12,000. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 in this case, but looking to the age of the deceased (39) the appropriate multiplier should be 16. This way, claimants would be entitled to compensation of (Rs. 12,000 x 16) Rs. 1,92,000. In addition to this, Munnibai would be entitled to solatium of Rs. 5,000, loss of expectancy of life Rs. 10,000, funeral expenses rs. 2,000 and loss to the estate of the deceased Rs. 2,500 taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 2,11,500. Enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realisation. Since claimants Kailash and abhilash Kumar are minors, it is desirable to protect their interest by awarding fixed amount of compensation to them, to be kept in fixed deposits with nationalised bank through Munnibai till they attain majority. Out of the total amount of compensation, these claimants are awarded rs. 50,000 each. Rest of the amount of compensation and the interest calculated thereon on the basis of award as well as this judgment be given to Munnibai. Costs on the parties. Appeal allowed. .