This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Bilaspur dated December 2, 1998. Claimants are widow and children of deceased Ramprasad Urav (40). He died in the accident on 1.10.1995 when Tipar M.P.-26-D-2116 met with an accident. It is further stated that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. Case u/s 279, 337, 304 of the I.P.C. was registered. Deceased used to earn Rs. 40/- per day and was 40 year old. Compensation of Rs. 7,40,000/- has been claimed with interest @ 10% per annum. Two claim petitions were filed: one by the parents and the other by widow and children. Respondents have denied that the deceased was going for labour in the tipar. The owner of the vehicle committed breach of insurance policy since it could not 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. 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 of 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. 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. 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. 80.00 as a carpenter. 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. 80.00 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. 1200/-. The proper multiplier in this case should be 16. Thus calculated, the compensation payable in this case comes to (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 Tribunal, payable from the date of application till realisation. The amount shall be paid within three months. The enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest that may accrue on it, shall be divided as follows: (i) Half of the amount shall be given to the widow Smt. Thumribai and her children. (ii) Half of the amount shall be paid to Durjan and Sukhnibai, parents of the deceased. Cost of parties.