BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 14. 5. 1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in M. V. C. No. 27 of 1997. ( 2 ) JEBONIUS Ekka (deceased) was coming to his house along with his daughter sushma Ekka on a bicycle. When they reached near Ghosal Complex, Chandan colony, truck No. MOJ 1448 came at a high speed and dashed against the bicycle. The deceased Jebonius Ekka sustained injury in the accident and died instantaneously. The truck was owned by Anil Sharma, driven by Ram Dulare Choudhary and insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , at the time of accident. The allegation is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the truck. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased, who was Senior Auditor (Signals) in the Pay and Accounts Office (Army) drawing gross pay of Rs. 5,985 per month. The claim for Rs. 8,48,065 has been made along with interest. ( 3 ) THE owner and driver of the truck have been proceeded ex pane while the insurance company has denied the claim alleging that Ram Dulare Choudhary was not driving the truck rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The claimants are not entitled to the compensation since they were not related to the deceased nor dependent on him. The deceased Jebonius ekka had contributed to the accident, therefore, the claim was not tenable. ( 4 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jabalpur, framed certain issues in this case and parties called upon to adduce the evidence in support and against the accident as per onus of proof being on either of them. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on 5. 10. 1996 when truck No. MOJ 1448 driven rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of the deceased near Ghosal Complex, Chandan colony, resulting in death of the deceased. The claimants have been found entitled to the compensation of Rs. 3,00,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with counsel fee of Rs. 1,000 on certification. As per penultimate para of the award, the compensation has been apportioned and certain other conditions with respect of claim have been imposed. 3,00,500 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with counsel fee of Rs. 1,000 on certification. As per penultimate para of the award, the compensation has been apportioned and certain other conditions with respect of claim have been imposed. The claimants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been assailed through this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. H. S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has not assessed compensation properly with the result that the compensation at the reduced rate has been awarded. The income of the deceased has not been considered properly nor correct multiplier has been applied while determining the compensation. ( 6 ) MR. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that the award is justifiable on evidence available on record. Other respondents have not appeared although registered communication was despatched to them long back. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver at the time of accident, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury and died. The defence taken by the respondents is not supported by evidence, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is sustainable and is, thus, confirmed. ( 7 ) THE next question in this case is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation has not been properly assessed and paid in this case. We find justification in the contention so raised, for reasons recorded hereinafter. The deceased was working as Senior auditor (Signals) in the Pay and Accounts office (Army ). Although in the claim petition, the salary income drawn by the deceased has been put on Rs. 5,984, but the most trusted and dependable evidence in this case is the last pay certificate produced by the claimants during the course of trial, which mentions the salary of the deceased as Rs. 6,448 per month. This has to be accepted, as such without making any deductions as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4,300 and annual rs. 51,600. The deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident. 6,448 per month. This has to be accepted, as such without making any deductions as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4,300 and annual rs. 51,600. The deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier in this case should be 13 instead of 9 used by the Tribunal, since the deceased was holding a responsible post in the Army and had every chance of securing promotion and increments in salary with passage of time. With this background, the reasonable amount of compensation payable in this case should be (Rs. 4,300 x 12 x 13) Rs. 6,70,800 plus Rs. 5,000 towards consortium and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking compensation amount to rs. 6,77,800. The compensation will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. However, the award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained so far as the same does not award compensation to Jefernius Ekka. Since Jefernius Ekka is also a legal heir of the deceased, he should also be awarded compensation on account of death of his father. Accordingly, the compensation is awarded as follows: (1) Helen Ekka (widow ). . . 50 per cent (2) Jefernius Ekka. . . 10 per cent (3) Sushma Ekka. . . 20 per cent (4) Deepikaekka. . . 20 per centin case, Deepika Ekka is still minor, her share shall be deposited in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank till she attains majority. ( 8 ) THE appeal is allowed in terms aforesaid. Appeal allowed. .