BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur dated 2. 12. 1998. Claimants are widow and children of deceased Ramprasad Urav (40 ). He died in the accident on 1. 10. 1995 when tipper, MP 26-D 2116 met with an accident. It is further stated that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. Case under sections 279, 337, 304-A of the indian Penal Code was registered. ( 2 ) DECEASED used to earn Rs. 40 per day and was 40 years old. Compensation of rs. 7,40,000 has been claimed with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Two claim petitions were filed: one by the parents and the other by the widow and children. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied that the deceased was going for labour in the tipper. The owner of the vehicle committed breach of insurance policy since it could only be used for transport of goods and its use for carriage of passengers was in contravention of the policy, therefore, the insurer was not liable for damages. It is also stated that the driver did not possess valid driving licence and the claim is exaggerated. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal found that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently which caused the accident in which the deceased and a girl died. Parents were depending on the deceased. Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,25,800 has been awarded and divided amongst the claimants. Insurer has been held liable to pay the same. Widow and children are not satisfied with the award, hence this appeal for enhancement. ( 5 ) CONSIDERATION of evidence discloses that finding of the Tribunal about causing of accident by the driver due to rash and negligent driving is established. It is also established that the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, the claim has been competently initiated. There is no issue with respect to the allegation that the driver did not possess valid driving licence and the driver committed breach of the policy conditions, nor claimed by any party, therefore, it has to be taken that this defence has not been established. ( 6 ) THE question is whether just compensation has been paid in this case. There is no issue with respect to the allegation that the driver did not possess valid driving licence and the driver committed breach of the policy conditions, nor claimed by any party, therefore, it has to be taken that this defence has not been established. ( 6 ) THE question is whether just compensation has been paid in this case. We find that the Tribunal has committed error in deciding this aspect of the case with the result that just compensation has not been awarded. Evidence discloses that deceased was earning Rs. 40 by way of labour and Rs. 80 as a carpenter. It appears that sometimes he used to work as a labourer and sometimes as a carpenter, since the same person cannot work both as a labourer and as a carpenter. However, it would not be unreasonable to fix his daily earning at Rs. 50 and monthly Rs. 1,500. There is no evidence to show how much the deceased was spending on himself and how much on the family. After deducting Rs. 300 for spending on himself, the dependency comes to Rs. 1,200 per month. The proper multiplier in this case should be 16. Thus calculated, the compensation payable in this case comes to Rs. 1,200 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 2,30,400. The claimants would also be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000 and conventional amount of Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life taking the total to Rs. 2,42,400. This amount of compensation of Rs. 2,42,400 will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Claims Tribunal, payable from the date of application till realisation. The said amount shall be paid within three months. ( 7 ) THE enhanced amount of compensation along with interest that may accrue on it, shall be divided as follows: (i) Half of the amount shall be given to the widow Thumribai and her children. (ii) Half of the amount shall be paid to Durjan and Sukhnibai, parents of the deceased. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .