Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Waraseoni (Balaghat), in Claim Case No. 2/96, dated 30-7-1997. ( 2. ) THE accident took place on 10-11-1989 at about 6 p. m. when lukendra (deceased) was carrying bricks through Tractor No. MKK 7184. Trolley tilted, he fell down and sustained injuries, resulting in his death. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Surendra Kumar, owned by Shantilal and insured with the united India Insurance Company Limited. ( 3. ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the taking place of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. They have said that the tractor-trolley was being driven properly and carefully. The deceased fell of his own and sustained injuries. The Insurance Company has also denied the claim on the ground that the deceased died due to his own negligence, facts stated in the claim petition have been denied and it is stated that the bricks were being carried for hire and reward. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim on the evidence that the deceased fell from the tractor-trolley for which the respondents could not have been held responsible. Against this award, this appeal has been filed by the claimants, who are dependent on the deceased. ( 5. ) IT is submitted that the deceased was 18 years old at the time of accident. The deceased was labourer on the tractor for carrying bricks. Due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, trolley tilted, as a result, the deceased fell and sustained injuries, which proved fatal. The deceased was earning rs. 20/- per day. The question for determination is whether the finding of the claims Tribunal that the deceased fell from the tractor-trolley of his own, is correct. The evidence on this point has been read by the Counsel for the parties. However, substance of evidence goes to show that the deceased was labourer on the tractor along with others. The deceased did not fall of his own as contended. Trolley tilted and he fell down, therefore, it can not be said that he was negligent and fell from trolley of his own. The conclusion of the Claims tribunal is, therefore, set aside. ( 6. The deceased did not fall of his own as contended. Trolley tilted and he fell down, therefore, it can not be said that he was negligent and fell from trolley of his own. The conclusion of the Claims tribunal is, therefore, set aside. ( 6. ) THE next question is the determination of compensation. The deceased was earning Rs. 20/- per day, Rs. 600/- per month. After making deduction of l/3rd towards personal expenses, monthly dependency comes to rs. 400/-, multiplied by 12, further multiplied by 16, compensation works out to (Rs. 400 x 12 x 16) Rs. 76,800/- plus Rs. 11,500/- (Rs. 7,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500/- loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses ). ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. Compensation of Rs. 88,300/-(Rs. Eighty eight thousand three hundred) is awarded. Shantilal and surendra Kumar are jointly and severally liable for compensation payable by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. , with which the tractor-trolley was insured. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% (Nine percent)per annum from the date of application till payment. Costs on parties. Misc. Appeal allowed.