R.S. MONGIA, CJ- Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is not necessary to go into the details of this case. Suffice it to say that Shri Parama Kalita was involved in a motor accident, due to which he died. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. The deceased left behind seven heirs, i.e., wife, four sons and two daughters. At the time of his death, two sons and two daughters were major. The deceased was an agriculturist by profession and he owned about 35 Biahas of agricultural land. He used to cultivate the same. It was stated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, MACT) that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. from the agricultural land. This evidence was accepted by the Tribunal and after deducting '/3rd of that income that the deceased would have spent on himself and after applying the multiplier "13", a total compensation of Rs.26,25,052/- (including Rs. 15,0007- as loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 10,0007- towards funeral expenses etc.) was awarded in favour of the applicants, along with interest @12% per annum with effect from 30.4.97, i.e., the date of the application. 3. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased, according to the applicants, was earning the money by cultivating the land and after his death, the land still remains and it is in the hands of his heirs, which they can cultivate, or give it on lease, etc., rather the learned counsel for the appellant argued that evidence has come on record that the son of the deceased, Shri Pranab Kalita, is cultivating the land in question. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. By the death of the deceased, the heirs lost the labour that was rendered by the deceased in cultivating the land. However, the land still remains. The income which was being derived by the deceased was by cultivating the land, which still remains in the hands of the heirs. So, to say that the loss to the heirs is Rs.25,0007- per month, would not be the correct proposition. The heirs themselves, as observed above, are cultivating the land, or any utilise the land by leasing it out etc. So, to say that the loss to the heirs is Rs.25,0007- per month, would not be the correct proposition. The heirs themselves, as observed above, are cultivating the land, or any utilise the land by leasing it out etc. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the loss of income because of the death of the deceased may be taken to be Rs. 10,0007-p.m., i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- per year. Deducting from that '/3rd of the amount which might have been spent by the deceased on himself, the balance comes to Rs.80,000/- per year. We do not find any wrong in applying the multiplier of 13, as the deceased was about 47 years of age. Applying this multiplier, the compensation will come to Rs.10,40,000/-. 6. Accordingly, we modify the award of the MACT to the aforesaid extent. The respondents (claimants) would be entitled to compensation of Rs.10,40,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 30.4.97. 7. Apart from the above, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,0007- for the loss of consortium. This amount of Rs. 15,0007- will not carry any interest. 8. While making this payment, the amount already paid/deposited may be adjusted. The appeal stands allowed as aforesaid.