K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are arising out of a road traffic accident caused by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TN 27/y 4804 on 5-11-1996 at about 9 a. m. near Jangalapalya on Bannerghatta-Anekal road. ( 2 ) THE appellants in the first appeal are the legal heirs of one Raman who was aged about 45 years and died in the accident. The appellants in the second appeal who are the legal heirs of one Arunachalam who was aged about 25 years who also died in the accident. Immediately after the accident both of them were shifted to the hospital and Raman died in the hospital three days after the accident whereas Arunachalam died on the way to the hospital. The Tribunal, after considering the avocation of these two deceased, has held that they were earning a sum of Rs. 50. 00 per day as wages, out of which 1/3rd has been deducted towards their personal expenses and thereafter has assessed the loss of dependency at rs. 1,000/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of dependency has been determined in the first case, by applying the multiplier 13 at Rs. 1,56,000. 00. In the second appeal, applying the multiplier 17, has determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,04,000. 00. Thereafter, in both the claim petitions, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 towards loss of consortium, loss of expectancy and funeral expenses. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award under appeal, these two appeals are presented by the claimants. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased persons. According to him, both the persons were working in a quarry and they were earning a sum of Rs. 300. 00 per day. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that it could be difficult for the legal representatives of the deceased to place cogent evidence or a conclusive evidence to prove the income of the deceased considering their background. Therefore, he requests this Court to enhance the compensation after appreciating the evidence available on record. 300. 00 per day. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that it could be difficult for the legal representatives of the deceased to place cogent evidence or a conclusive evidence to prove the income of the deceased considering their background. Therefore, he requests this Court to enhance the compensation after appreciating the evidence available on record. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the insurance company contends that the Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded a just and proper compensation. According to her, there is no need or necessity to enhance the compensation as the same is based on a proper appreciation of evidence. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel, the point that requires to be considered in these appeals is: whether the compensation awarded in these two claim petitions are required to be enhanced? If so, to what extent? ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute in regard to the age of the deceased persons. There is also no dispute in regard to the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in assessing the loss of dependency. The only question disputed by the appellants' Counsels in both these appeals are in regard to the income arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that considering the nature of avocation, the deceased persons were getting wages of rs. 50/- per day. Admittedly no positive evidence has been let in by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal was left with no other go than to guess the income of the deceased persons. The accident is of the year 1996. In the year 1996 even an ordinary building worker was getting a sum of Rs. 80. 00. Therefore, the income of the deceased persons who were working in the quarry cannot be less than Rs. 75. 00 per day. If the same is to be taken as the income or the wages of the deceased persons, their income has to be calculated at Rs. 2,250. 00. Out of which, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the loss of dependency has to be arrived at Rs. 1,500. 00 per month. If it is so, applying the proper multiplier in both the cases, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. 2,250. 00. Out of which, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the loss of dependency has to be arrived at Rs. 1,500. 00 per month. If it is so, applying the proper multiplier in both the cases, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, based on the above income, by applying the multiplier 13 in the first appeal, the loss of dependency has to be calculated at Rs. 2,34,000. 00. In addition, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 under the heads loss of consortium', 'loss to expectancy" and 'funeral expenses'. Thus in all, in the first appeal, the appellants are entitled for a sum Rs. 2,64,000. 00 as against the compensation of rs. 1,86,000/ -. ( 9 ) SIMILARLY, in the second appeal, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,06,000. 00 towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, they are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 towards loss of consortium, loss to the estate and funeral expenses. Thus in all, the appellants in the second appeal are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,36,000. 00 as against rs. 2,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ( 10 ) IN the result, these appeals are allowed in part. The appellants in the first appeal are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,64,000. 00 as against Rs. 1,86,000. 00 awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 each shall be deposited in the name of appellants 1, 4 and 5 for a period of five years. The first appellant is entitled to draw interest on behalf of the appellants 4 and 5 who are minors. The Tribunal shall make arrangements to deposit the amount of rs. 20,000/- in the name of appellants 4 and 5 till they attain the age of majority. The remaining amount shall be distributed to all the appellants. ( 11 ) THE second appeal M. F. A. No. 3962 of 2001 is also allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been enhanced from Rs. 2,29,000. 00 to Rs. 3,36,000. 00. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 40,000. ( 11 ) THE second appeal M. F. A. No. 3962 of 2001 is also allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been enhanced from Rs. 2,29,000. 00 to Rs. 3,36,000. 00. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 shall be deposited in the name of the first appellant for a period of five years and a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 each shall be deposited in the name of appellants 2 and 3 till they attain the age of majority and that the first appellant is entitled to draw interest on behalf of her minor children. A sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 shall be deposited in the name of appellant 5 for a period of five years with proportionate interest. The remaining amount shall be distributed to the appellants. --- *** --- .