S. S. JHA, A. K. GOHIL, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. ( 2 ) DECEASED Brijesh died in an accident on 23. 2. 1996. Motor vehicle having registration No. MPB 6583 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 4 caused the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in the death of Brijesh. Since the finding as to rash and negligent driving is not under challenge before this court, therefore, we advert to the question of quantum of compensation only. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that in spite of overwhelming evidence, claims Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased at rs. 1,000 per month. He submitted that the evidence has not been perused properly by the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the determination of quantum of compensation is incorrect. He submitted that the income of the deceased determined at Rs. 12,000 per annum is also not correct as notional income is Rs. 15,000 per annum. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the widow of the deceased Sunita, AW 1, deposed that deceased was giving her Rs. 1,000 per month for domestic expenses and rest of the income was being deposited by him in a bank. He submitted that in this case minimum dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month should be determined and loss of income at the rate of Rs. 500 should be paid to appellants-claimants. Therefore, dependency ought to have been determined at Rs. 1,500 per month, i. e. , Rs. 18,000 per annum. ( 4 ) THE counsel for the respondents supported the award and submitted that this is a case of no evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased and at the most, income of the deceased can be determined at notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum and compensation be determined on that income. ( 5 ) WE have perused the evidence on record. Sunita, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was earning about Rs. 50,000- Rs. 60,000 per year from agriculture. Land was fertile and two crops were grown on the said agricultural land, namely, wheat and mustard. Production was around 20-30 quintal. ( 5 ) WE have perused the evidence on record. Sunita, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was earning about Rs. 50,000- Rs. 60,000 per year from agriculture. Land was fertile and two crops were grown on the said agricultural land, namely, wheat and mustard. Production was around 20-30 quintal. Deceased was having four she-buffaloes and he was also selling milk of she-buffaloes. He was giving Rs. 1,000 per month to her for domestic expenses and remaining amount was deposited in a bank. Thus, this witness has categorically stated that the deceased was giving her rs. 1,000 per month for domestic expenses and remaining amount was deposited in a bank. It is true that no documents have been filed to prove that the deceased was depositing the amount in a bank, but the fact remains that the deceased was an agriculturist and was cultivating over the joint family land. Sunita, AW 1, has categorically deposed that after the death of her husband she is living with her parents and not in the house of her husband and she and her children are being looked after by her parents. Thus, the family of the deceased is deprived of the agricultural income which was falling in the share of her deceased husband. In the circumstances, it can safely be presumed that apart from Rs. 1,000 per month which was paid by the deceased to the appellant towards domestic expenses, appellant was also getting some money around Rs. 4,000 per annum from the agricultural income. Therefore, yearly dependency of the claimants is determined at rs. 16,000. Deceased was between 20-25 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable to this figure and compensation is determined at Rs. 2,72,000. Claimants will also be entitled for a further compensation of Rs. 28,000 under various heads such as for loss to the estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc. and thus the total compensation is determined at Rs. 3,00,000. Appellants will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of appeal. Enhanced amount shall also be kept in a fixed deposit in proportionate form and claimants will be entitled for the interest. and thus the total compensation is determined at Rs. 3,00,000. Appellants will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of appeal. Enhanced amount shall also be kept in a fixed deposit in proportionate form and claimants will be entitled for the interest. However, it is clarified that as and when claimants will feel urgency of the amount, they may apply to the Claims tribunal and the Claims Tribunal shall consider about their genuine need and pass orders in accordance with law. ( 6 ) APPEAL succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .