JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. -- This appeal is directed against the award dated July 29, 1992, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Claim Case No. 28/29. Samuna Yadav (deceased) was coming from Surkhi Pondi Dam towards village Juhala (Katni) at about 9.35 p.m. on 15.6.1996 along with Darbarilal Patel. The Truck No. MPK 3137 driven rashly and negligently, by Hetram, came from Katni side and dashed against the deceased. As a result of this accident, Samanua Yadav died on the spot. Police registered the case under section' 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver. The claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 2,36,000/-. The owner and driver chose to remain absent, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim and alleged that the claim petition did not mention the policy number, under which the vehicle was insured. The deceased neither possessed the land nor manufactured bidis. Therefore, the claimants did not suffer from any loss on account of death of Samanua Yadav. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was hit by truck no. MPK 3137 driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which he died. The claimants are found entitled to compensation and the vehicle covered by the Insurance Policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 16,000/carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded. The claimants are challenging this award on the ground that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly resulting in payment of inadequate compensation against the claim made in the claim petition. Therefore, the submission is that the award deserves to be modified and compensation enhanced. Shri Divesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that to the deceased was 65 year old and in absence of definite evidence as to in his land holdings and income, award is reasonable and justifiable. It may be true that the deceased was 65 years old at the time of m accident, but this fact would not disentitle the claimant from claiming compensation. The only thing to be considered is that the multiplier of lesser side would be applicable in such a case. There is no dispute about I taking place of accident and the deceased being hit by the truck and his death on account of this accident. The only thing to be considered is that the multiplier of lesser side would be applicable in such a case. There is no dispute about I taking place of accident and the deceased being hit by the truck and his death on account of this accident. It is pointed out that he was an agriculturist, out of which he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per year and Rs. 300/- by manufacturing bidis. The claimants have not led evidence as all to how much land the deceased possessed, but there is also no evidence in rebuttle suggesting that he did not possess any agricultural land. Therefore, with the nature of evidence produced by the parties in this case, it would be just and proper to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 12,000/- a year. Deducting Rs.400/- towards personal expenses, yearly dependency comes to Rs. 8000/-. At this stage, we think, the multiplier should be 5 (five). Apart from this, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs'. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss to the estate and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of expectency of life, taking total compensation of Rs. 49,500/-. This compensation will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till payment. The appeal is allowed in terms aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.