J. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') is directed against the judgment/award dated 17. 4. 2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Shahdara, Delhi, granting compensation of Rs. 1,24,976/- with interest @ 12% per annum not from the date of filing of the petition i. e. from 6. 12. 91 but w. e. f. 9. 11. 2001 to 17. 4. 2004 ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. J. M. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants (petitioners in the tribunal, hereinafter referred to as petitioner No. 1 and 2), and Ms. Sonia Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), and have gone through the record. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that late Bhagwan Din, aged 27-28 years was traveling in a cycle rickshaw along with four persons on 10. 6. 1991, when a maruti Van driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2 hit the rickshaw, injuring all the 5 persons including the riksha puller. Bhagwan Din expired. He was (allegedly) earning Rs. 80/- per day as a labourer engaged in loading and unloading coal from a truck. He was said to be the sole bread earner of the family. It is stated that the appellants (widow and minor daughter) suffered loss of dependency @ Rs. 2000/- per month. A claim of rs. 9,70,500/- was raised along with interest thereon. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner No. 1 examined only herself. Despite efforts and taking steps like deposit of process fee for summoning witnesses, the witnesses did not turn up. Since the petitioners were not able to produce evidence they were granted one last opportunity on payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost and since they were unable to pay cost or produce witnesses, the petition was dismissed for want of evidence. ( 5 ) THE petitioners preferred appeal in the High Court of Delhi. The High court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 5. 12. 2000 restored the petition directing that the appellants-petitioners shall be granted reasonable opportunity to produce evidence, if any, in case they file list of witnesses and their claim be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. After the remand of the petition, notices were sent to respondents. The High court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 5. 12. 2000 restored the petition directing that the appellants-petitioners shall be granted reasonable opportunity to produce evidence, if any, in case they file list of witnesses and their claim be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. After the remand of the petition, notices were sent to respondents. Again respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte and the matter was contested only by respondent No. 3 who was granted permission under Section 170 of the M. V. Act to contest the petition. ( 6 ) STATEMENT of petitioner No. 1 widow shows that she had deposed that her husband (deceased) was sending her Rs. 1500-2000/- per month for the family. The suggestion given by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was that he was sending very less amount. ( 7 ) THE learned Judge MACT held that the allegation of rash and negligent driving could not been proved before the MACT and as per established law the compensation has been granted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Certified copies of the record of the criminal case were proved before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal. The offending vehicle was covered by the respondent no. 3 (Insurance company ). ( 8 ) RECORD shows that despite efforts the witnesses to prove the income of the deceased could not be produced in the court. The witnesses from the company in whose truck deceased was said to be working as labourer or his colleague labourers did not appear in the court to show or depose about his monthly earning. However, it is common knowledge that at the relevant time a labourer used to be paid about Rs. 50-60/- per day. A labourer may not get work every day. Another negative factor against the petitioners is that the deceased was admittedly traveling in an over loaded riksha, but that by itself does not completely exonerate the respondents. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that some modification regarding the income and period of interest in the impugned judgment/ award should be made in this case. Accordingly instead of assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 854/- (minimum wages at the relevant time), I assess his average income at Rs. 1200/- per month. The annual income, therefore, works out to be Rs. Accordingly instead of assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 854/- (minimum wages at the relevant time), I assess his average income at Rs. 1200/- per month. The annual income, therefore, works out to be Rs. 1200 X 12= Rs. 14400/ -. After deducting 1/3rd from it as personal expenses of the deceased, the income comes to be = Rs. 9600/- per annum. This is to be taken as loss of dependency. In my view correct multiplier has been applied by the learned judge MACT. So the amount finally comes out to be rs. 9600/- X 18 = Rs. 1,72,800/- plus Rs. 5000/- for funeral, consortium and miscellaneous expenses. Interim compensation of Rs. 2500/- is to be deducted as ordered by the learned judge MACT. ( 10 ) AS regards non grant of interest w. e. f. the date of petition till passing of the award, the opinion of learned judge MACT was that the appellants-petitioners were delaying the matter and were therefore not entitled to interest for the entire period of pendency of the petition. However perusal of the record shows that sometimes there was no presiding officer and sometimes the file was not put up and at other times the presiding officer was transferred. I find in this case that the petitioner or her learned counsel could not be wholly faulted for non-prosecution of the case, because steps for summoning witnesses were being taken. Moreover the petition was wrongly dismissed by the MACT and was restored by the High Court. This also added to the delay. These are procedural delays. Therefore the interest part also, in my view, requires modification. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances, I modify the impugned judgment/award and direct that the interest @ 9% per annum be paid w. e. f. date of filing of the petition i. e. 6. 12. 1991 till 9. 11. 2001. Interest @ 12% w. e. f. 10. 11. 2001 to 17. 4. 2004 shall be calculated on the additional amount due to enhancement of compensation. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The additional total amount so calculated be paid by respondent No. 3 to the appellants in equal shares.