VERMA, SETH, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 is against the award dated 12. 11. 1998 passed by Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora, in M. V. Case No. 81 of 1997. ( 2 ) ONE Mustaq Khan, driver by profession, met with a motor road accident on the night of 10. 10. 1997 while he was driving his Tempo Trax which was going from jaora to Neemuch. Near Dodar village respondent No. 2, who was driving truck bearing registration No. JK 02-E 9578 and was owned by the respondent No. 3 and was insured with respondent, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. It violently dashed the said Tempo trax driven by deceased. On account of violent impact on the Tempo Trax, deceased mustaq sustained severe bodily injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal representatives of the deceased, i. e. , his widow and minor children filed claim petition with a prayer for awarding compensation to them for untimely death of Mustaq. On appreciation of evidence available on record, Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 to the appellants to be recovered from the respondents. Feeling the amount to be inadequate they are in appeal. ( 3 ) WE have, accordingly, heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the impugned award. Finding has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal that accident had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent no. 2 and the said finding has not been assailed before us. ( 4 ) SARIF Khan, PW 2 where deceased mustaq was working as driver has deposed that the monthly income of deceased was rs. 3,000. Similar is the statement of the widow of deceased Raisa alias Chando. The said evidence has been disbelieved mainly on the ground that no accounts said to have been maintained by the employer, were submitted. After having gone through the evidence, the certified copies of which were made available to us, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased was wrongly fixed at Rs. 2,000 p. m. In our considered opinion his monthly income should have been fixed at Rs. 2,500. Thus the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 30,000. 2,000 p. m. In our considered opinion his monthly income should have been fixed at Rs. 2,500. Thus the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 30,000. Out of the aforesaid amount, deceased must have been spending something on himself. Thus, it is reasonable to deduct 1/3rd amount out of the said amount. The dependency of the appellants would, thus, work out at Rs. 20,000 p. a. From the oral and other documentary evidence on record it has rightly been held that the age of the deceased was 39 years. This fact was not disputed by the other side. The multiplier adopted by the Claims tribunal was 12. As per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, tor age group of 35 to 40 the proper multiplier should be 16. Thus, Rs. 20,000 x 16 would work out at Rs. 3,20,000. To this we add a further sum of Rs. 30,000 towards various other heads such as loss of consortium loss of love and affection, loss to the estate, loss of company, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the total amount payable to appellants by respondents jointly and severally would work out at Rs. 3,50,000. ( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified and appellants are held entitled to receive Rs. 3,50,000 jointly and severally from the respondents. The difference amount shall carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid. Costs of the litigation throughout shall be borne by respondent No. 1. Counsel's fee rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .