BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim case No. 84 of 1999, dated 30. 12. 1999. ( 2 ) THE incident took place on 10. 5. 1998. Deceased Pramod Tamrakar was travelling in Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration no. MP 23-G 8366 from Durg to Rajnandgaon. At 7. 30 a. m. , near Ganesh Temple on the G. E. Road, the vehicle went out of control and overturned. Deceased sustained fatal injuries due to which he died in the district Hospital, Rajnandgaon, after 4 or 5 hours. The vehicle was owned by respondent no. 8 Lambasingh and driven by respondent No. 7, Sunil Yadav. It was insured with the appellant. After filing reply, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were proceeded ex parte. ( 3 ) DEFENCE of the appellant is that there was breach in the policy conditions with respect to driving licence and unauthorised use of the same, having been used as a taxi, though it was a private car. Appellant had sought permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and availed other defences including those under section 149 (2) of the Act. Allegation is that the accident occurred because of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged and the claimants are entitled to compensation, being legal heirs of the deceased, to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. The finding is that respondent No. 7 Sunil yadav had a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not being used for hire or reward. ( 5 ) MR. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the award is excessive, therefore, deserves to be reduced. We do not agree with this contention. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. He was doing business in utensils. His monthly income has been settled at Rs. 5,000. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, dependency has been put at Rs. 40,000 per annum. After application of multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs. 6,40,000 has been awarded. To this amount has been added Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and Rs. He was doing business in utensils. His monthly income has been settled at Rs. 5,000. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, dependency has been put at Rs. 40,000 per annum. After application of multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs. 6,40,000 has been awarded. To this amount has been added Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total to Rs. 6,78,000 (Sic. ). Taking into consideration all the relevant factors like age of the deceased, his family and income, etc. , this amount of compensation seems to be reasonable. No case for interference is made out. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is allowed two months time to deposit the amount. Appeal dismissed. .