BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award dated 4. 1. 1993 of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No. 31 of 1991. ( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are widow and two sons of deceased Sami Ahmad who died in the motor accident that took place on 6. 11. 87 when he was travelling from Shahdol to allahabad at 5 p. m. in the bus owned by m. P. State Road Transport Corporation and the bus turned turtle at Sohagighat and fell into a khad. Allegation is that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The deceased was running a hotel at Calcutta, earning Rs. 2,000 per month, out of which he was giving Rs. 1,500 to the family towards maintenance. At the time of accident, he was 50 years old. Claim for rs. 5,75,000 has been raised. ( 3 ) TAKING place of the accident has been admitted by the respondents but it is stated that due to the locking of the steering, the vehicle could not sustain the balance and the same turned turtle. The deceased had protruded his head out of window, as a result of which he sustained injury which caused his death, while the other passengers had not done so, therefore, they did not suffer any injury. The deceased was 70 years old and was not maintaining good health. He was not earning anything, therefore, no loss is sustained by the family due to his death. Consequently, no compensation is payable. ( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal accepted the version of claimants about the taking place of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. However, compensation of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application has been awarded. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was 60-65 years old and it was not proved that he was earning rs. 2,000 per month from hotel business and paying Rs. 1,500 per month to the family. It was also not proved that he could remain alive for 30 years and help the family. Further objection against the award is that dependency has erroneously been held at rs. 2,000 per month from hotel business and paying Rs. 1,500 per month to the family. It was also not proved that he could remain alive for 30 years and help the family. Further objection against the award is that dependency has erroneously been held at rs. 500 per month because the income of the deceased has not been accepted as one stated by claimants and that proper multiplier has not been used for settling the just compensation in this case. The claimants are not satisfied with the award and findings recorded by the Tribunal with respect to the age and income of the deceased, hence this appeal. ( 5 ) WE have examined the matter and perused evidence. From the statement of saida Khatoon, widow of deceased, it is clear that the deceased was 50 years old and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month out of which he was giving the family a sum of Rs. 1,500 per month. It may be true that the post-mortem report fixes the age of the deceased at 60 and by the witnesses of the respondents at 70; but looking to the nature of evidence, it is desirable that the age of the deceased is fixed at 60. ( 6 ) NOW the question is what income the deceased was earning at the time of accident. The deceased was running a hotel at calcutta which is the biggest city of the country. Survival of eight members of the family with income of less than Rs. 2,000 per month was absolutely difficult. As per evidence, the deceased had daughters also who have been married. In these circumstances, the statement of Saida Khatoon and Mohd. Sami Ahmad is satisfactory and dependable. We, therefore, accept that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 per month, out of which he must be spending 1/3rd on himself leaving Rs. 1,300 to the family. Proper multiplier in this case should be 8. ( 7 ) CALCULATED as aforesaid, the compensation payable in this case would be rs. 1,300 x 12 x 8 = Rs. 1,24,800 plus rs. 5,000 (for loss of expectancy of life), rs. 5,000 (consortium), Rs. 2,500 (loss to the estate) and Rs. 2,000 (funeral expenses)taking the total to Rs. 1,39,300 (rupees one lakh thirty-nine thousand three hundred only ). ( 7 ) CALCULATED as aforesaid, the compensation payable in this case would be rs. 1,300 x 12 x 8 = Rs. 1,24,800 plus rs. 5,000 (for loss of expectancy of life), rs. 5,000 (consortium), Rs. 2,500 (loss to the estate) and Rs. 2,000 (funeral expenses)taking the total to Rs. 1,39,300 (rupees one lakh thirty-nine thousand three hundred only ). The enhanced compensation would carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .