JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award dated 17.1.2000 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 98/97. Deceased Falgu met with a road accident on 6.4.1996. Said accident was caused by Respondent 1 on account of his rash and negligent driving of the video coach bus. After accident deceased was taken to hospital where he succumbed to injuries during the course of night. Deceased was a skilled artisan (mason) who had specilised in construction of Jain Temples. According to claimants monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- (six thousands). In support of claim besides widow, two persons were examined to prove the income of the deceased. No other evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month and worked out annual income of the deceased at Rs. 21,600/- (twenty one thousands six hundred). After deducting conventional 1/3rd amount annual loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 14,400/- (fourteen thousands four hundred). Looking to the age of deceased Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 and worked future 'loss of dependency at Rs. 1,58,400/- (One lakh, fifty eight thousands four hundred). Another sum of Rs. 9,500/- (nine thousands five hundred) was added and total amount of compensation worked out to Rs. 1,67,900/which was rounded to Rs. 1,68,000/- (One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousands). Shri Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased. Shri Swami on the other hand submitted that in absence of reliable evidence Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and proper amount of compensation to the claimants. Undisputedly the deceased was a skilled artisan who had specilised in the construction of Jain temples. Deceased could not be categorised as ordinary mason who does normally laying of bricks. Construction of temples encarving requires very high level of skills and, therefore, in our considered opinion the daily income of deceased would safely be taken at Rs. 100/-. Thus, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 36,000/- (thirty six thousands). After deducting conventional 1/3rd amount annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- (twenty four thousands). Tribunal in our considered opinion has rightly applied multiplier of 11. Therefore, applying the same multiplier the future loss of dependency comes to Rs. 100/-. Thus, annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 36,000/- (thirty six thousands). After deducting conventional 1/3rd amount annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- (twenty four thousands). Tribunal in our considered opinion has rightly applied multiplier of 11. Therefore, applying the same multiplier the future loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,64,000/- (two lakhs sixty four thousands). To this we add another sum or Rs. 26,000/- (twenty six thousands) towards other heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. Thus, appellants are entitled to receive from respondents jointly and severally a total sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- (two lakhs ninty thousands). Undisputedly, on the date of accident Respondent 1 was driving the offending vehicle which was owned by Respondent 2 and was insured with Respondent 3. Thus, all respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to appellants. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent from the date of application till it is actually paid to the appellants. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- (two lakhs ninty thousands) minus the amount already paid to the appellants together with the interest as mentioned above. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand), if certified. C.C. on payment of usual payment as per rules.