BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Khandwa (East Nimar) arising out of Claim Case No. 16 of 1996 dated 12. 12. 1997 is challenged by the wife and daughter of the deceased Jhabbu Khan the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of deceased. They had filed Claim Case no. 7 of 1996, disposed of by common award. However, they have not challenged the same through separate appeal. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, Jhabbu Khan (the deceased) was driver in truck bearing registration No. MBI 9306. This truck was owned by Sheikh Jamil and Sheikh Khalil, driven by Rashid Beg, second driver of the truck with the deceased. Allegation is that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by Rashid Beg. It struck against parapet wall and a tree. The deceased, who was sitting in the cabin of the truck, was thrown out and died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Contention of the respondents/non-claimants is that the deceased was not a driver in the truck. He was a helper. The truck was going downhill on a curve. For avoiding accident with vehicle coming from the opposite side, accident took place on account of sudden mechanical failure. Being a helper, he was getting Rs. 1,500 including daily allowance. The Claims tribunal, after recording evidence, found that the accident took place as alleged. It also found that the deceased was driver in the truck receiving rs. 2,000 per month. Ultimately, compensation of Rs. 2,55,000 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Through this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by the wife and daughter of the deceased. Mr. Z. M. Shah, counsel for appellants submits that for the purpose of enhancement of compensation, application has been filed in the Registry. Since whole case is open for consideration in this appeal, filing of an applicaton for enhancement of compensation is not very much relevant. Duty is cast on the court to assess just compensation, therefore, it is to be considered whether claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, we proceed to decide the appeal and hold on the basis of evidence that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. Duty is cast on the court to assess just compensation, therefore, it is to be considered whether claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, we proceed to decide the appeal and hold on the basis of evidence that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. The deceased died in the accident and he was driver in the truck and not a helper, as alleged. ( 4 ) NEXT question for consideration is what was the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Mr. Virendra Verma, the learned counsel for insurance company states that the deceased was a helper earning Rs. 1,500 per month inclusive of daily allowance as per statement of owner of the vehicle NAW 1. However, Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Neelesh Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submit that income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 per month as per statement of Umar Khan, PW 1, ansar Khan, PW 2 and Mohd. Sayad, PW 3. Yasmin AW 1 states that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 by way of salary and Rs. 750 as monthly allowance, besides rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 per annum by brokerage of vehicles. However, looking to the nature of evidence, desirable it would be to assess the dependency at Rs. 2,000 p. m. leaving out all other incomes towards personal expenditure of the deceased. That being so, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 24,000, multiplied by 18, 28 years being the age of the deceased at the time of accident = Rs. 4,32,000, plus rs. 16,500 (Rs. 7,000 loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 consortium to the wife, rs. 2,500 loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 cremation expenses ). This way compensation works out to Rs. 4,48,500 payable with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of application till payment payable by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. within two months. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal is allowed and award is modified. The claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,48,500 (rupees four lakh forty-eight thousand five hundred) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, payable by the New India assurance Co. Ltd. within two months. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal is allowed and award is modified. The claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,48,500 (rupees four lakh forty-eight thousand five hundred) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, payable by the New India assurance Co. Ltd. within two months. Out of the total amount of compensation including interest, parents of the deceased (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) be paid compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand ). The rest of the amount of compensation with interest on the total amount shall be paid to the appellants as under: (1) Yasmin (wife) 60 per cent (2) Ishrat (daughter) 40 per centshare of Ishrat (daughter) shall be invested in FDR in a nationalised bank in her name through Yasmin (mother) till she attains majority. Costs on parties appeal allowed. .