BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS group of four miscellaneous appeals (Nos. 916, 1007, 1008 and 1016 of 1998) is proposed to be decided by common judgment since they arise out of the same award of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, dated 27. 4. 1998 arising out of the same accident. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, it may be stated that on 21. 4. 1989, Ramvati Gupta, Manirani Gupta, Bhagwan Gupta and Rajesh Dubey had gone to Maihar for obeisance to the deity. They travelled by car bearing registration no. MUK 67. It was owned by L. P. Dubey and driven by Rajesh Dubey. The accident took place near Raigawan, Police Station amdara, when the car dashed against a tree. In this accident, Bhagwan Gupta, ramvati Gupta and Rajesh Dubey died while Manirani Gupta suffered injuries. Claimants filed claim petitions, claiming compensation for the death of deceased while Manirani Gupta filed two claim petitions one on her own behalf for receiving injuries and the other for the death of her husband Bhagwan Gupta. The allegation is that the accident took place due to mechanical defect in the vehicle. Defence of the insurance company is that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle. He was taking passengers, therefore, it is not responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. It is also stated that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. ( 3 ) THE owner of vehicle has stated that deceased Rajesh Dubey was in possession of driving licence (D2) and was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. As a matter of fact, this respondent has admitted the claim. The Tribunal considered the matter and held that it was not proved that the conditions of insurance policy were violated. It is also held that Rajesh Dubey was negligent in driving the vehicle. Therefore, it proceeded to dismiss the claim filed by Chhaya Mishra (substituted for Narayani Devi ). For the death of Ramvati, compensation of Rs. 25,000 has been awarded. For the death of Bhagwan Gupta, Manirani gupta has been awarded compensation of rs. 3,96,000 and for injuries sustained by her a sum of Rs. 10,000 has been awarded. Therefore, Chhaya Mishra has filed appeal for setting aside award and grant of compensation for the death of Rajesh Dubey (brother ). 25,000 has been awarded. For the death of Bhagwan Gupta, Manirani gupta has been awarded compensation of rs. 3,96,000 and for injuries sustained by her a sum of Rs. 10,000 has been awarded. Therefore, Chhaya Mishra has filed appeal for setting aside award and grant of compensation for the death of Rajesh Dubey (brother ). Similarly, Manirani Gupta has filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation for the death of her husband bhagwan Gupta and for injuries to herself. Similarly, Shail Kumari and Vijay have filed appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of Ramvati Gupta. The tribunal has ordered payment of compensation without payment of interest. ( 4 ) THE question for determination is whether finding of the Tribunal with respect to negligence on the part of Rajesh dubey is sustainable. Learned counsel for oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. contended that finding of negligence of deceased Rajesh dubey has been recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, it should not be disturbed. This submission cannot be appreciated. The question is on what evidence, this finding has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The defence taken by the insurance company is thoroughly vague and indefinite. It has simply said that there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy but which conditions, it has not been specifically pointed out. Except for filing the reply, no effort was made to lead evidence in support of the plea it had taken in the statement. It transpires that the Claims Tribunal arrived at this conclusion on the statement of Manirani Gupta. But on perusal of the statement of this witness, it is found that her statement does not support the finding of the Claims Tribunal. She is the only surviving member in the accident. She states that all of a sudden the vehicle got strayed and struck against roadside tree. Therefore, it cannot be said that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by deceased Rajesh dubey. No question to this effect was suggested to Manirani Gupta by the party contesting the case. Consequently, the finding is not in accordance with the evidence and it can be said that accident took place because of mechanical defect the vehicle had, as contended by the claimants. No question to this effect was suggested to Manirani Gupta by the party contesting the case. Consequently, the finding is not in accordance with the evidence and it can be said that accident took place because of mechanical defect the vehicle had, as contended by the claimants. ( 5 ) ANOTHER aspect of the question is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the claim when deceased Rajesh dubey happens to be the son of L. P. Dubey, owner of the vehicle. Contention is that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death of Rajesh Dubey since he happens to be the son of L. P. Dubey, owner of the vehicle. No such defence has been taken nor substantiated, therefore, the plea is liable to be rejected. Moreover, it is found that the accident has taken place due to sudden mechanical defect developed in the vehicle. ( 6 ) HAVING come to the conclusion as discussed above, we proceed to deal with individual cases as under: m. A. No. 916 of 1998: Chhaya Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. : this claim case is for the death of rajesh Dubey who was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was teacher, drawing salary of Rs. 2,113 per month, Annex. P8. Out of this amount, he must be spending '/3rd on himself, leaving the rest to the family. Since Narayani Devi (mother) has died and the appellant happens to be his married sister, it would be just and proper to award a lump sum compensation of rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh) in this case. Ordered accordingly. M. A. No. 1007 of 1998: Manirani Gupta v. L. P. Dubey: claimant Manirani Gupta has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of her husband Bhagwan gupta who was 34 years old at the time of accident. He was doing business and his income has been assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month. Multiplier of 16 has been applied by the Tribunal fixing the dependency at rs. 2,000 per month. In the absence of dependable and satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the dependency assessed by the tribunal is accepted but in this case proper multiplier should be 17 instead of 16 applied by the Tribunal. This way amount of compensation works out to Rs. 4,08,000 (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 17 ). 2,000 per month. In the absence of dependable and satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the dependency assessed by the tribunal is accepted but in this case proper multiplier should be 17 instead of 16 applied by the Tribunal. This way amount of compensation works out to Rs. 4,08,000 (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 17 ). The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 towards consortium, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 4,27,500 (rupees four lakh twentyseven thousand five hundred) to which the claimants are entitled. M. A. No. 1008 of 1998: Manirani Gupta v. L. P. Dubey: claimant suffered personal injuries in this accident. The injuries are on hands as a result of which she suffered great mental agony and shock. She had to keep maidservant for proper care of her minor children. She has been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000. Disability certificate has not been filed. In this case, award of compensation is reasonable and justified, therefore, enhancement is not called for. M. A. No. 1016 of 1998: Shail Kumari v. L. P. Dubey: in this case, claim is for the death of ramvati Bai, who was 50 years old at the time of accident, earning Rs. 1,410 per month. The Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants since they are married. We think the amount awarded is on lower side. After all, there was death in the accident and the extent of compensation granted would not serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, we enhance the compensation to the extent of Rs. 35,000 taking the total to Rs. 60,000 (rupees sixty thousand) in this case. ( 7 ) NOW the question is whether the interest is awardable in these cases and if so at what rate. The Tribunal has not awarded interest on the ground that the claimants are responsible for the delay in disposal of the claim cases. It may be true that accident took place on 21. 4. 1989 and the claim petitions were filed in October, 1989. They have been disposed of by the award dated 27. 4. 1998. The Tribunal has not awarded interest on the ground that the claimants are responsible for the delay in disposal of the claim cases. It may be true that accident took place on 21. 4. 1989 and the claim petitions were filed in October, 1989. They have been disposed of by the award dated 27. 4. 1998. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that this delay is on the part of the claimants due to nonproduction of witnesses for which claimants sought adjournment after adjournment. Yes, there is delay in disposal of the claim cases on the part of the claimants. Claimants produced the witnesses in 1996. Therefore, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation awarded, as stated above is allowed to be paid with effect from 1. 1. 1995 till the date of payment in all the cases. Appeals are disposed of in terms stated above. Costs on parties. Orders accordingly. .