BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sagar, in Claim case No. 35 of 1997, dated 31. 3. 1999. ( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are father and brother of the deceased Mohd. Shaif Ali alias Shafique. Deceased was car mechanic-cum-car driver. Accident took place on 18. 6. 1997 when he was going from Mawai to Piparia at 6 a. m. in the car after collecting passengers. When he reached Rajmarg Chouraha, sagar Road, at 11 a. m. , M. P. State Road transport Corporation bus bearing No. MP 09-D 0398, driven rashly and negligently by the driver Gaffoor, respondent No. 2, dashed against the car with great impact that the car went off the road into field. Shaif Ali alias Shafique died on the spot, while passengers sustained injuries. F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Suatala and case was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2, Gaffoor (driver of M. P. State Road Transport Corporation bus ). ( 3 ) THE claimants submit that deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month by driving the car and being mechanic of the car. He was young and healthy, therefore, he was earning this amount and could earn more in the later years. Compensation of rs. 20,58,000 is claimed. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS submit that deceased shaif Ali alias Shafique was driving the car rashly and negligently. The accident took place while saving bullock-cart and brought the bus to halt and the car dashed against it. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged. The deceased Shaif Ali alias shafique died in this accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,22,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 6 ) THROUGH this appeal, award has been challenged by claimants. They seek more compensation alleging that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just compensation after taking into consideration income of deceased, his age and multiplier applicable in this case. With regard to accident, there can be no dispute since evidence clearly suggests that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, otherwise accident would not have taken place. With regard to accident, there can be no dispute since evidence clearly suggests that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, otherwise accident would not have taken place. Suggestion that bus was halted for avoiding the accident and the car hit the stationary bus, cannot be accepted, in view of clear evidence pointing out his actionable conduct for causing the accident. ( 7 ) THE next question is whether just compensation has been paid to claimants for the death of the deceased. We are not satisfied with the finding of the Claims tribunal on this question for the reason that the Claims Tribunal has not calculated the compensation after taking into consideration exact income of the deceased, his age and the multiplier. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was driver and mechanic of car. He was using this car for carrying passengers and earning Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month. Of course, he was not maintaining workshop for car repairs, he was using the car as a taxi, it can be taken that he may be earning Rs. 100 a day and Rs. 3,000 per month. Out of it, he must be spending 1/3rd on himself and leaving 2/3rd for family to survive. At this stage, the proper multiplier is 17. Therefore, we award compensation of (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 17) Rs. 4,08,000 to the claimants. That apart, claimants shall also be entitled to rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. Therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,22,500. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. Appeal allowed. .