Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD on M (C)P No. 4837/02 for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. ( 2. ) ON consideration of the cause shown and the benevolent object of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the compensation under Sections 166 and 173, the application is allowed and the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. ( 3. ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. ( 4. ) BY this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants assail the adequacy of the amount of compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa, vide award dated 10-3-1999 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 49/98. ( 5. ) THE appellant No. 1 is the widow of deceased Maharajdeen Dubey, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 arc his children and appellant No. 5 is his father. Deceased Maharajdeen was working as a driver. It is alleged that on 28-4-95 on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. MP-17-C/0167, by respondent No. 2, it collided with truck of deceased Maharajdeen Dubey, resulting in his instantaneous death. The truck was insured with the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. A compensation of Rs. 6,40,200/- was claimed but on finding that there was contributory negligence in which the contribution of the deceased was to the extent of 25%, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 84,000/ -. Aggrieved by the inadequacy, the present appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month as driver in addition to the daily allowance of Rs. 50/- and, therefore, the Tribunal had grossly erred in holding that the dependency of the appellants was only to the extent of Rs. 500/ -. ( 7. ) WE have considered the submission of the learned Counsel and though we find that the dependency assessed at Rs. 500/- per month is on the lower side, at the same time, the dependency can not be worked out by inclusion of the daily allowance which the deceased must have been spending on himself. Thus, from Rs. 12,000/- of salary the deceased must be contributing to the family a sum of Rs. 8,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, i. e. , one third for himself. Thus, from Rs. 12,000/- of salary the deceased must be contributing to the family a sum of Rs. 8,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, i. e. , one third for himself. To this, Rs. 8,000/-, if the multiplier of 17 is applied, the amount comes to Rs. 1,36,000/ -. Since it is a case of death, the appellants are also entitled to funeral expenses in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-, for the loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- and in addition, the widow is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, a total sum to which the appellants would become entitled comes to Rs. 1,45,500/ -. However, since deceased was himself held responsible for the accident to the extent of 25%, the appellants are entitled to only 75% of the above amount from respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. 75% of the above amount comes to Rs. 1,09,125/ -. ( 8. ) WE, therefore, hold that the appellants arc entitled to Rs. 1,09,125/-from respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of the award. The Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) is granted two months time to pay the amount. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. ( 9. ) THE appeal is, thus, partly allowed.