Judgment H. S. Bedi and J JJ. 1. This appeal arises out of a claim petition filed on account of the death of Harvinder Singh, the husband of claimant No.1, the father of claimant Nos.2 to 4 and the son of claimant Nos.5 and 6. As per the facts of the case, the deceased, who was a painter and employed with the Punjab Roadways, Moga Depot, was going on a scooter No. CH-01-H-4396 met with an accident with the truck bearing registration No. CH-01-G-439, belonging to the Chandigarh Administration, in which he was killed. A claim petition was filed by his legal heirs-claimants and the Tribunal vide findings on issue no.1 held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and then awarded a sum of Rs.6,58,000 in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 2. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 3. As the Chandigarh Administration has not filed an appeal against the award, the finding with regard to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question remains unchallenged. Even otherwise, I have gone through the record and find that the finding of the Tribunal on this issue has been clearly proved on record. The finding of the issue is accordingly confirmed. 4. Mr. Naresh Katyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that as per the finding of the Tribunal, the salary of the deceased at the time of his death, i. e. , on 3.6.1997 was Rs.4,928 and this figure had been taken by the Tribunal in order to determine the quantum of compensation. He has further argued that this figure was in fact erroneous, because as per the evidence of PW 4 Harpreet Kaur, the widow of the deceased and PW 2 kirpal Singh, the deceaseds salary had been revised to Rs.6,205 per month w. e. f.1.1.1996 and as such the dependency of the claimants and the quantum of compensation ought to have been determined on this amount. This argument has been controverted by Mrs. This argument has been controverted by Mrs. Lisa Gill, the learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, who has submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the deceaseds salary has been enhanced from rs.4,928 to Rs.6,205 and as such any further enhancement was not justified. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record with their assistance. 6. It has come in the evidence of PW 2 kirpal Singh, whose testimony remains unchallenged (as he was not cross-examined)that as per the revised scales, the carry-home salary of the deceased would have been increased to Rs.6,205. Harpreet Kaur in her statement (which also remained unchallenged on this aspect), also stated that the salary had been revised w. e. f.1.1.1996 on the recommendations of the pay Commission. To my mind, therefore, the salary of the deceased on the date of his death must be taken to be Rs.6,205 and not Rs.4,928. In this situation, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation appears to be in error. Taking the salary of the deceased to be Rs.6,205 and after deducting 1/3rd as the amount that he had been spending on himself, a sum of Rs.4,000 approximately is left as the dependency of the claimants on the deceased. As the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death as per the C. B. S. E. certificate issued to him and produced by his wife in court, a multiplier of 16 is the suitable one in the circumstances. The quantum of compensation is accordingly computed as under: rs.4,000 x 12 = Rs.48,000 x 16 = rs.7,68,000 (round off Rs.7,70,000 ). 7. The claimants shall also have interest in the manner determined by the Claims tribunal on the enhanced amount. Out of this amount, Rs.50,000 shall be paid to the widow, Rs.50,000 to be apportioned amongst the three children in equal shares and Rs.12,000 to the parents. The amount falling to the share of the minor children shall be put in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for the duration of their minority. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.