Judgment ( 1. ) IN these appeals claimants call in question validity of award dated 6-3-2000 passed in Claim Case Nos. 14/95 and 16/95 arising out of same accident dated 27-2-1995. ( 2. ) CLAIM Case No. 14/95 was filed on account of death of Moolchand whereas Claim No. 16/95 was filed for claiming compensation on account of death of Ghansu s/o Bharosa. ( 3. ) THE deceased Ghansu and Moolchand were travelling from Mandla to Amarkantak in a Jeep MPQ 5361. Jeep dashed with an electric pole due to rash and negligent driving by Shri Rajesh @ Guddu. Jeep was owned by Sanjay Kumar and insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. , Ghansu and Moolchand sustained injuries. Ghansu died during the course of treatment whereas Moolchand died on the spot. Claim petitions were preferred by Smt. Sita Bai and others on account of death of Moolchand, compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- was claimed, age of Moolchand was 35 years and on account of death of Ghansu compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- was claimed, age of Ghansu was approximately 50 years. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 65,000/- in Claim Case No. 16/95 and compensation of Rs. 1,64,000/- has been awarded on account of death of Moolchand in Claim Case No. 14/95. M. A. No. 1200/2000 has been filed as against award passed in Claim Case No. 14/95 and M. A. No. 1175/2000 has been filed as against the award passed in Claim Case No. 16/95. The liability has been saddled on the driver. Application was filed to bring on record the L. Rs. of the deceased owner Sanjay Kumar. Application was dismissed as it was not filed within a period of 90 days and the Claims Tribunal held that application vis-a-vis to the owner had abated, consequently insurer has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation to the claimants. ( 5. ) DURING pendency of these appeals, a Division Bench of this Court has allowed the application to bring on record the L. Rs. of the deceased owner Sanjay Kumar. Name of Shivram Kushwaha was substituted, notice was issued to the substituted L. R. of the deceased but in spite of service none has put in appearance for owner. ( 6. ) SHRI L. S. Singh, learned Sr. of the deceased owner Sanjay Kumar. Name of Shivram Kushwaha was substituted, notice was issued to the substituted L. R. of the deceased but in spite of service none has put in appearance for owner. ( 6. ) SHRI L. S. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the application as against the owner and in exonerating the insurer. When application was filed to take on record the L. Rs. , it ought to have been allowed. The order dated 17-9-1999 is palpably illegal. He has submitted that appropriate multiplier has not been applied and compensation awarded in both the cases is on lower side, inadequate income has been assessed, thus compensation be suitably enhanced in both the cases. ( 7. ) SHRI N. S. Ruprah with Shri Ajit Singh for insurer has submitted that just compensation has been awarded by Claims Tribunal as claim petition had abated against the owner as such insurer has been rightly exonerated. ( 8. ) SHRI Sanjay Saini, learned Counsel for driver has submitted that liability ought to have been fastened on the insurer there is no abatement. He has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Chuharmal Issardas and Ors. v. Haji Wali Mohammed and Ors. 1968 MPLJ 780. ( 9. ) THE first question for consideration is whether claim petition against the owner had abated and provision of Order 22 of CPC has application to proceed under Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 240 of M. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 makes the following provisions of CPC applicable to the proceedings: 240. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries.- Applications of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules, the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XVIII, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21, Order XVII, Order XXI and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be applicable thereto. ( 10. ) DIVISION Bench of this Court in Chuharmal Issardas and Ors. v. Haji Wall Mohammed and Ors. ( 10. ) DIVISION Bench of this Court in Chuharmal Issardas and Ors. v. Haji Wall Mohammed and Ors. (supra), has held that the provisions relating to abatement contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application to these proceedings. When an application was filed, though belatedly beyond 90 days, it ought to have been allowed. The Claims Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the application and in holding that claim petition had abated against the owner and consequently exonerating the insurer from making the payment of compensation. With abandoned caution L. Rs. have been brought on record, in this appeal substitution was allowed, none has put in appearance on behalf of owner. ( 11. ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation in Claim Case No. 1175/2000 arising out of death of Ghansu, his age was claimed to be 50 years in the claim petition. Deceased was an agriculturist and used to obtain contracts also, he was sole bread winner to the family. The income @ Rs. 1000/- per month assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. It would be proper to assess the income at Rs. 15000/- per annum, which is provided even for a non-earning member in Second Schedule and it would be proper to assess the age of the deceased between 55-60 years. Deceased had three family members, thus it would be appropriate to deduct l/4th amount towards self expenditure, thus loss of annual dependency comes to Rs. 11,250/ -. Multiplier of 8 is applicable, which is applied. Thus compensation comes to Rs. 11,250 x 8 = Rs. 90,000/ -. In addition claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5,000/is awarded to widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand only ). The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. ( 12. ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation in M. A. No. 1200/2000 on account of death of Moolchand aged 35 years. He left behind six dependents, a widow and five minor children. Compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- was claimed. ( 12. ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation in M. A. No. 1200/2000 on account of death of Moolchand aged 35 years. He left behind six dependents, a widow and five minor children. Compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- was claimed. Deceased was active in social life also, he was a member of District Panchayat. He was an agriculturist and used to obtain contracts also. Leela Bai (C. W. 1) has stated that deceased used to earn Rs. One lakh per annum from agriculture. Munna (C. W. 2) has also stated that deceased was sole earning member, he was an agriculturist and used to obtain contracts also, he was a member of District Panchayat and he was having substantial income. Hem Kumar has stated that deceased used to earn a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per annum. As the deceased was a member of District Panchayat, he was young, he used to earn from agriculture and used to obtain contracts, thus it would be proper to assess the income of the deceased at 125 per day, per month Rs. 3,750 and annual income Rs. 45,000. l/3rd amount is deducted towards self expenditure, thus compensation on account of dependency comes to Rs. 30,000/ -. In the postmortem report age of the deceased was mentioned approximately 35 years, multiplier of 16 is applicable, which is applied, thus compensation comes to Rs. 4,80,000/ -. In addition claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 5000/- for loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5000/- is awarded to widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only ). The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 13. ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeals are allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.