BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award dated 1. 2. 1996 of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in claim Case No. 14 of 1990. ( 2 ) SHANKH Mani is the owner of vehicle no. CAA 4044. It met with accident on 13. 8. 1989. All the passengers including the driver died in the accident. Claimants are wife and children of the deceased Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari. They have filed the claim stating that on the said day, Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari was travelling from bahri to Mhowganj with Preetu (4 ). Deceased Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari was 28 years old at the time of accident working as Electrician Helper getting Rs. 2,500 per month from Dudhichua Colliery, N. C. L. , singrauli, District Sidhi (MP ). The family has history of longevity of about 80 years. The deceased used to spend Rs. 500 on himself leaving the rest to the family but the Tribunal has wrongly held that the monthly dependency was Rs. 1,250 and applied multiplier of 9 when evidence on the record justify award of higher amount of compensation by application of proper multiplier. Hence, claim for enhancement of compensation is made. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 admits ownership of the vehicle but pleads vis major for the taking place of accident. Due to heavy rains and lightning, the driver could not see the curve which resulted in the accident. Therefore, he is not responsible for the accident and payment of compensation. In alternative, it is stated that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, he is not responsible for payment of compensation. Respondent No. 2 has denied the allegation and the insurance of the vehicle, but later stated that in case it is found responsible, in that event the liability does not exceed Rs. 15,000. It is also stated that the vehicle was being driven without permit and without a valid driving licence, therefore, in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. All the defences have been rejected by the Tribunal and a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000 for the death of Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari and rs. 25,000 for the death of Preetu has been awarded. Claimants seek enhancement of the award to Rs. 8,00,000 by this appeal on the grounds referred in the preceding part of the judgment. All the defences have been rejected by the Tribunal and a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000 for the death of Kamleshwar Prasad Tiwari and rs. 25,000 for the death of Preetu has been awarded. Claimants seek enhancement of the award to Rs. 8,00,000 by this appeal on the grounds referred in the preceding part of the judgment. ( 4 ) AFTER giving our consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in this case, therefore, enhancement is necessary. Accepting the daily income of deceased at Rs. 61, monthly income would come to Rs. 1,830. Out of it, the deceased was spending 1/3rd on himself, leaving rs. 1,220 per month (Rs. 14,640 per annum, rounding up the same to Rs. 15,000) to the family. At the time of accident, deceased was 28 years old, therefore, proper multi-plier in this case should be 18 and not 9 as applied by the Tribunal. Thus calcu-lated, the amount comes to Rs. 2,70,000 (Rs. 15,000 x 18 ). The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of expect-ancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss of estate, rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium and rs. 2,000 towards the funeral expenses, taking the total amount of compensation to rs. 2,89,500 (rupees two lakh eighty-nine thousand five hundred only ). ( 5 ) DECEASED Preetu was 4 years old at the time of accident. Since her father was employed, there was every possibility of the girl studying to reasonable extent and taking up some employment at a later stage and married after sometime. However, the reasonable amount payable in such case should be Rs. 50,000. That apart, claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to rs. 64,500 (rupees sixty-four thousand five hundred only ). [see Pramila Bai v. Mustafa Khan, M. A. No. 1495 of 1996; decided on 10. 10. 2000]. ( 6 ) THE insurance company has not ap-peared to substantiate the claim made by it as to the limited liability. Under the new act, the liability to pay the compensation is on the insurance company. Motor Vehi-cles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the liability to pay compensa-tion shall be of the insurance company. Under the new act, the liability to pay the compensation is on the insurance company. Motor Vehi-cles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the liability to pay compensa-tion shall be of the insurance company. The compensation as aforesaid is payable with interest at the rate allowed by the tribunal and divided to the claimants in the ratio settled by the Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .