ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sconi, in M.C.C. No. 57/93, dated 5-4-1999. 2. Truck No. MPJ-655 was carrying food items from Lakhnadon to village Andia. About one kilometer ahead of Kedarpur, the truck met with an accident resulting in the death of Diwarilal Jharia. Allegation is that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Gubra alias Govardhan Yadav. The truck was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. 3. The claimant is the widow of the deceased who was 40 years old at the lime of accident. The deceased was a Peon in the Kedarpur Co-operative Society with salary of Rs. 970.00 p.m.. Claim for Rs. 2,32,800.00 has been preferred. The Insurance Company has disputed the claim alleging that it is not coned and there has been violation of terms of Insurance Policy. The deceased was fare paid passenger, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 4. The Tribunal rejected the defences put up by the Insurance Com- pany. It held that the accident took place on 18-12-1992 when truck No. MPJ-655 met with the accident about a kilometer ahead of Kcdarpur resulting in the death of the deceased. The truck was driven rashly and negligently by the driver and Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. It also found thai violation of terms and conditions of policy alleged by the Insurance Company had not been proved. Compensation of Rs. 52,560.00 has been awarded with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. Claimant, not satisfied with this award, has challenged the same through this appeal. 5. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed the compensation correctly with the result that just compensation has not been awarded. Learned counsel submits that Revtibai has specifically stated that out of the monthly income of the deceased, she was being given Rs. 800.00 per month. Therefore, learned counsel contends that this statement should be accepted and principle of 1/3 deduction from the total salary of the deceased is not applicable in this case. Shri H.B. Agrawal submits that the award is reasonable and just, therefore, deserves to be maintained. 6. 800.00 per month. Therefore, learned counsel contends that this statement should be accepted and principle of 1/3 deduction from the total salary of the deceased is not applicable in this case. Shri H.B. Agrawal submits that the award is reasonable and just, therefore, deserves to be maintained. 6. Giving our consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the statement of Revtibai that she was being paid Rs. 800.00 per month by the deceased should be accepted. Consequently, annual dependency in this case would be 9,600.00 and multiplier of 16 is applicable jn this case. Therefore, the compensation payable in this case is (9600 x 16) = Rs. 1,53,600.00. In addition to this amount, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000.00 for loss of expectancy of life, .Rs. 5,000.00 for loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000.00 for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500.00 for loss to the estate, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,73,100.00. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the dale of application till payment. Costs on parties. 8. Misc. Appeal allowed.