Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-Heard learned Counsel. 2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.03.1997 passed by MACT, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 1783/1992. In the road accident which took place on 24.07.1992, the tractor bearing registration No. RJ-13-1672 was hit by a dumper bearing registration No. RJ-14G-2075. A labourer lady Smt. Mangli fell down from the tractor and she was crushed to death by the said dumper which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal after arriving at the finding of such rash and negligent driving of dumper in favour of claimants and proceeded to compute the compensation in favour of legal representatives of deceased Mangli. The Tribunal took the net income of said labourer lady of Rs. 1200/-per month and after making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded dependency benefit at Rs. 1,44,000/-. No other amount was awarded under any of the heads. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that this has been the consistent view of this Court that for the deceased in a road accident, having belonged to lower income group, the deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenditure is not usually made. In Har Bai & Ors. vs. Laxmi Narain & Ors., 2006 RAR 157 this Court took a similar view following the earlier view of this court in Rama Nand vs. Smt. Lalita Sharam & Ors., 1992 (1) WLC 250 (Raj). He further submits that in the Second Schedule to the Act which came w.e.f. 111.1994, the notional income of non-earning members has also been taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The factor for the age group of 26 as prescribed in the said schedule is also given as 18. 5. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company however submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not call for any interference or enhancement by this Court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel, and upon perusal of the impugned award, this Court finds force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants. In the family of labour class, a labourer lady is not expected to spend 1/3rd of total income for her personal expenditure and normally in such cases, no deduction of 1/3rd is required to be made. In the family of labour class, a labourer lady is not expected to spend 1/3rd of total income for her personal expenditure and normally in such cases, no deduction of 1/3rd is required to be made. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal of 15 also deserves to be increased to 18 particularly in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any other compensation under any of the heads. Consequently, dependency benefit deserves to be computed to Rs. 2,59,200/-(1200x12x18) which would result in net enhancement of Rs. 1,15,200/-in favour of claimants. 7. The liability of payment of compensation as determined by the Tribunal has been fixed upon the owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally and, the learned Tribunal has directed to disburse the said compensation amount in a particular manner. The difference amount of enhancement now awarded by this Court would bear interest @7.5% from the date of filing of this appeal i.e., 18.08.1997 till the date of payment. In the first instance, the payment should be made by the Insurance Company within a period of three months from today. The said amount would be deposited in MIS account of three claimants in equal proportions i.e., Kanha Ram S/o Ganga Ram, husband of deceased; Ramkishan S/o Kanha Ram, son of deceased and Mukesh S/o Kanha Ram, another son of deceased, who by now must have become major, and the claimants will be entitled to draw the interest on such MIS deposits. The Tribunal will disburse the said amount in the aforesaid manner and if for the opening of MIS account which the learned Counsel for the appellants submits, is opened in round figure of multiple of Rs. 1000/-only, the Tribunal shall disburse the last fraction of that amount of Rs. 1000/- by account payee cheque after getting such maximum amount deposited in respective MIS account with post office. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this misc. appeal is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs