U. C. MAHESHWARI, J, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 4. 12. 2004 passed by motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in M. C. C. No. 61 of 2004, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the awarded sum. ( 2 ) AS per the appellants-claimants on 29. 4. 2004 at about 8 o'clock in the night antu Nirmalkar aged 30 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant nos. 2 to 4 was coming back home from village Bagdona to Pathakheda on motor cycle TVS Max 100 his friend Oran was also with him as pillion rider. He drove the motor cycle in normal speed exercising all caution. On reaching near Rajeev Gandhi tigadde, Pathakheda, where oil had spilled on the road and suddenly because of failure of brakes his motor cycle became imbalanced, slipped and collided with a tree they fell down and Antu sustained injuries on his head, face, hands and legs. He was taken to hospital Pathakheda, on the way he succumbed to injuries. The deceased was doing work of bicycle repairing in the shop of Sudhir Chakravarty, as alleged he was earning Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per day and all the appellants were dependent on him as he was the only bread earner of the family. On information, Police Station, pathakheda has registered the case. Due to sudden death of adult and earning family member, appellants have lost the source of dependency as well as love and affection of the husband and father. Claim was filed for compensation of Rs. 26,20,000 against respondent No. 1 owner of the motor cycle and respondent No. 2 the insurer of it. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 remained ex parte in the Claims Tribunal while in reply of respondent No. 2, the averments made by the appellants have been denied. The said motor cycle was driven by the deceased himself in a rash and negligent manner and that was the cause of the accident. The story relating to spilled mobile oil on the road is a manipulated one. The deceased was used to drinking liquor and on the date of the incident he was riding the motor cycle under the influence of liquor. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation. Deceased was not having effective and valid driving licence to ride the said vehicle. The deceased was used to drinking liquor and on the date of the incident he was riding the motor cycle under the influence of liquor. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation. Deceased was not having effective and valid driving licence to ride the said vehicle. The premium for pillion rider was not paid by the insured, due to lack of premium the insurer is not liable to indemnify any claim, as such, the motor cycle was plied under the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed for dismissal of the claim. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings, after framing the issues evidence was recorded. On consideration of it, it was found that due to sudden failure of the brakes of the motor cycle and because of spilled mobile oil on the road, the motor cycle not only slipped but collided with tree also. No negligence on the part of the deceased was found by the Tribunal. It was also found that motor cycle was not plied under the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The liability regarding compensation was saddled against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and appellants were awarded Rs. 2,03,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application. Hence, appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement to the awarded sum. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for appellants has submitted his submission only on the question of quantum of compensation. As per his submission deceased was doing work of bicycle repairing by which he was earning Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per day and evidence regarding his earning was adduced but the same was not considered on proper prospect. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency only on the basis of Rs. 50 per day income of the deceased. As per award the total earnings was assessed at Rs. 18,000 per year and by deducting 1/3rd for expenses of the deceased, Rs. 12,000 was assessed as the loss of annual dependency of the appellants. The deceased was 30 years old thus the multiplier of 18' was applicable but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15' only and inadequate amount has been awarded. He prayed for adequate enhancement in awarded sum. ( 6 ) MRS. 12,000 was assessed as the loss of annual dependency of the appellants. The deceased was 30 years old thus the multiplier of 18' was applicable but the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15' only and inadequate amount has been awarded. He prayed for adequate enhancement in awarded sum. ( 6 ) MRS. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurer, has submitted that on appreciation the Claims tribunal has awarded an adequate sum, it does not require any further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the award it appears that the deceased was 30 years old and doing the work of bicycle repairing. The submission of the appellants is that the deceased was earning about Rs. 200 to rs. 250 per day, appears to be on a higher side. According to us, a person who was involved in bicycle repairing comes under the category of skilled labour, thus his income may be assessed Rs. 75 per day. The same is taken up for consideration to assess the dependency. As he was earning rs. 75 per day which comes to (Rs. 75 x 30) = Rs. 2,250 per month and annually (Rs. 2,250 x 12) comes to Rs. 27,000. Out of this, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted on account of expenses which would have been incurred by the deceased on himself had he been alive, then annual dependency comes to Rs. 18,000. As per the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act at the age of 30 years as deceased was the multiplier of 18' is applicable. On applying this multiplier the total dependency comes to (Rs. 18,000 x 18) = Rs. 3,24,000. In addition to it, appellants are also awarded rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate, Rs. 5,000 for loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5,000 for the appellant No. 1 widow of deceased as loss of consortium. Thus, total award comes to Rs. 3,38,500 (rupees three lakh thirty- eight thousand and five hundred only ). Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application. The awarded sum are to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. ( 8 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. 3,38,500 (rupees three lakh thirty- eight thousand and five hundred only ). Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application. The awarded sum are to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. ( 8 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no orders as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .