JUDGMENT They are heard on I.A. No. 2449/03. This is an application for dispensing with the service of notice on respondents No. 1 and 2. It is alleged that despite payment of the requisite PF, the notice of the appeal could not be served on the respondents No.1 and 2. It is also alleged that respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte by the tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, the application is allowed. I.A. No. 2449/03 stands al10wed and closed. With consent arguments heard. For the death of Mansharam, who died in a road accident on 7.6.1997, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the 10th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Indore in Claim Case No. 79/00. The appellants are widow and minor children of the deceased Mansharam. Mansharam was employed as a driver and was earning a salary of Rs. 1200/- per month (Ex. P-1). The tribunal found that the respondent No.1 Ramsingh was responsible for causing the road accident, in which Mansharam lost his life. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- to the appellants. The finding of the tribunal that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing the accident is not assailed before us, it is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3 at the time of the accident. Thus, the tribunal held that the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. This finding of the tribunal is affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, the tribunal has applied a lower multiplier of 15 instead of 18.He further submitted that the tribunal wrongly deducted half of the amount of the salary of the deceased instead of 1/3rd amount. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The monthly salary of Mansharam was Rs. 1200/-, as is clear from Ex. P-1. Thus deducting conventionall/3rd amount, which the deceased must have been spending on himself during his life time, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 800/- per month and annually Rs. 9,600/-. Looking to the age of the deceased, in our opinion multiplier of 18 should be applied to determine the future loss of dependency, which comes to Rs. P-1. Thus deducting conventionall/3rd amount, which the deceased must have been spending on himself during his life time, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 800/- per month and annually Rs. 9,600/-. Looking to the age of the deceased, in our opinion multiplier of 18 should be applied to determine the future loss of dependency, which comes to Rs. 1,72,800/-. To this, we add another sum of Rs. 27,200/- towards compensation on other heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of company, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the appellants are entitled to recover from the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the application till it is actually paid. The respondent No.3 shall bear the costs through out. Counsel's fees Rs.1,000/-, if certified.