BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 1. 8. 1997 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1 of 1997. ( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are widow and two minor daughters of deceased. They submit that accident took place on 16. 4. 1996 when deceased was going from Bilaspur to Kota in Matador No. MP 23-D 3985 with Nirma powder. Allegation is that this vehicle had collided with another vehicle No. MP 26-D 2624 resulting in the accident. The deceased was 29 years old at the time of accident. He was working as porter with nirma Washing Powder Company, earning rs. 150-200 per day. The family was dependent on him and, therefore, the claim case has been filed by claimants for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased. Defence taken is that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, he committed breach of policy conditions. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also stated that other vehicle was responsible for the accident in question. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident resulting in the death of deceased who. was 30 years old at the time of accident, earning Rs. 900 per month. The claimants are entitled to receive compensation and hence, it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,200 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Claimants are not satisfied with the award, hence this appeal for enhancement. ( 4 ) MR. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for claimants, submits that award is liable to be set aside since it does not take into consideration the income of the deceased nor proper multiplier has been used by Tribunal. Mr. Ruprah, Mr. Sanjay agrawal and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed these contentions and they submit that the award is just and reasonable and hence no interference is called for. They have also submitted that the claimants have not adduced satisfactory evidence with respect to income and hence proper assessment cannot be made. Mr. Ruprah, Mr. Sanjay agrawal and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed these contentions and they submit that the award is just and reasonable and hence no interference is called for. They have also submitted that the claimants have not adduced satisfactory evidence with respect to income and hence proper assessment cannot be made. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the respective submissions of learned counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. Bai Kewat (widow) states that deceased was earning Rs. 150-200 per day. Netram Yadav, driver states that deceased was earning Rs. 200 per day. It has not been stated by these witnesses how much deceased was spending on the family and how much towards his personal expenses. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the statement to the extent they have stated. However, fact remains that the deceased was a porter with a reputed company and was carrying supplies in the truck going from Bilaspur to Kota. In any case, his wages could not be less than rs. 1,500 per month, out of which he must be spending Rs. 500 upon himself leaving the rest for the family. Dependency, therefore, comes to Rs. 1,000 per month and rs. 12,000 per year. At the time of accident, deceased was 30 years old. Proper multiplier in this case should be 18 instead of 16, as applied by Tribunal. Accordingly the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,16,000 (Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 18 ). The deceased was husband of Bai Kewat, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 2,23,000 (rupees two lakh twenty-three thousand ). This amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. ( 6 ) EVIDENCE suggests that both vehicles are responsible for the accident as found by the Tribunal also, therefore, the liability arising out of the accident would be shared by the insurance companies, owners and drivers jointly and severally. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent aforementioned. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed. .