Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT/claimant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 12-1-1999 passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 44/98 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal regarding vehicular death of Kedarnath. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to factual matrix of the case, the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4 namely Kedarnath on 9-9-1997 at about 12. 00 in the night was going by his scooter bearing registration No. MP 04-1458 from Subhash Nagar to his residence but on reaching near to Dharmkata the bus bearing registration No. MP 04-H-7649 driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner came there from opposite direction and dashed to his scooter. Resultantly he sustained injures and taken to Hamidia Hospital where he died at about 2. 00 oclock in the night. The offence was registered against respondent No. 1 by P. S. Jahangirbad and on investigation charge-sheet under Section 304-A of the IPC was submitted. ( 3. ) IT has also been pleaded that the deceased was working as LDC in M. P. Kala Parishad and his salary was Rs. 4,303/- p. m. while he was entitled Rs. 5,565/- p. m. as per new fixation and his promotion for the post of Account Officer was due, where he would have received the salary Rs. 15,493/- p. m. and due to his untimely death the appellants have been deprived from dependency. The Bus was owned by respondent No. 2 while insured with respondent No. 3, with this back ground the claim was preferred for Rs. 16,85,000/ -. ( 4. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 and 2 were remained ex parte in the Tribunal. ( 5. ) IN reply, respondent No. 3 pleaded that accident took place because of contributory negligence of the deceased himself. It was also pleaded that deceased and respondent No. 1, driver of bus both were not having valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so insurer is not liable for any compensation. ( 6. It was also pleaded that deceased and respondent No. 1, driver of bus both were not having valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so insurer is not liable for any compensation. ( 6. ) AFTER recording evidence, on appreciation of it the Tribunal has held that the incident was not the consequence of contributory negligence of the deceased and by holding negligence of respondent No. 1 saddled the liability against the respondents and by assessing the loss of dependency of Rs. 34,440/-per annum and by adopting multiplier of 12 awarded Rs. 4,13,280/as compensation regarding death. In addition to it some other amount was also awarded. The total award for Rs. 4,35,280/- has been passed. Hence, appellant has preferred this appeal for further enhancement. ( 7. ) SHRI Pradeep Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of dependent persons wife, two minor children, old aged father of the deceased. 1/3 amount from salary regarding expenses of deceased was wrongly deducted by the Tribunal. He also submitted that future prospect of deceased regarding promotion and provisions of new pay commissions were not considered and in the age group of 35 to 40 years instead of multiplier of 16 the 12 was applied and prayed for adequate compensation. ( 8. ) WHILE on the other hand Smt. A. Ruprah with Shri Ajay Gupta justified the award of the Tribunal and submitted that in the facts and circumstance it is just and proper, does not require any enhancement and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 9. ) ON considering aforesaid submissions, on perusing the record it appears from the statement of Smt. Kumud (C. W. 1) that her deceased husband was receiving salary Rs. 4,500/- p. m. and contrary to this in application it was pleaded the deceased was receiving Rs. 4,303/ -. So far future promotion is concerned no evidence was led by the appellants. In our opinion in appreciation of evidence Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the loss of dependency of the appellants on the basis of salary Rs. 4,303/- per month. Thus, finding of the Tribunal for loss of annual dependency of Rs. 34,440/- is hereby affirmed but in application of multiplier the error is apparent. In our opinion in appreciation of evidence Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the loss of dependency of the appellants on the basis of salary Rs. 4,303/- per month. Thus, finding of the Tribunal for loss of annual dependency of Rs. 34,440/- is hereby affirmed but in application of multiplier the error is apparent. According to second schedule of Motor Vehicle Act the multiplier of 16 was applicable to the age group of 35-40 years, then multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied instead of 12. ( 10. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, by allowing this appeal in part the award of the Tribunal is modified and on applying the multiplier of 16 the appellants are awarded Rs. (34,440 x 16) = 5,51,040/- as compensation regarding death of Kedar. In addition to it Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/-for loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5,000/ to appellant No. 1 for loss of consortium. Thus, appellants are awarded total Rs. (5,51,040 + 2,000 + 2,500 + 5,000 + 5,000) = 5,65,540/- (Rs. Five lacs sixty five thousand five hundred forty ). The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing the claim application and all respondents shall be liable to pay enhanced amount to the appellants jointly and severally. ( 11. ) APPEAL is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to the cost.