ORDER Jha, J. -- 1. This appeal is tiled by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Other findings recorded by Claims Tribunal are not under challenge in this appeal. 2. Counsel for appellants submitted that deceased Lakhansingh at the time of his death was 28 years of age and Claims Tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of twelve and submitted that after recording the finding that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month compensation ought to have been awarded on the dependency at Rs. 2,000/per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum by applying multiplier of eighteen. 3. Counsel fur respondent No.3, Shri P.O. Agarwal. Advocate, submitted that he has filed cross-objections praying therein that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured as driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and the accident has been caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep and not by the driver of the Mini-bus. Another ground raised by the Insurance Company is that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. Counsel for respondent No.3. therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation be reduced and Insurance Company be absolved from its liability for paying compensation. 4. Before proceedings further first we proceed to decide the cross-objections filed by the Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that deceased Lakhansingh was driving the jeep. Said jeep collided with a Mini-bus. Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has held that Mini-bus No. MP-07/F-0622 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep which caused death of Lakhansingh. PW 2, Kallu has deposed that he was also travelling in the said jeep, which was driven by deceased Lakhan in slow speed and Mini-bus was coming from opposite direction from the side of Bhind has dashed against the jeep. This witness has categorically deposed that on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mini-bus accident occurred which resulted in the death of Lakhansingh. No other evidence is led by the Insurance Company to demonstrate that driver of the jeep was negligent in driving the vehicle. In absence of any evidence produced by the Insurance Company pertaining to nature of the accident, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are affirmed as they are based on the evidence on record. No other evidence is led by the Insurance Company to demonstrate that driver of the jeep was negligent in driving the vehicle. In absence of any evidence produced by the Insurance Company pertaining to nature of the accident, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are affirmed as they are based on the evidence on record. We affirm the finding that the Mini-bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 5. As regards income of the deceased is concerned. PW 1, Bhikamsingh has deposed that deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and he was aged about 28 years at the time of death. In para four of his deposition he has further deposed that apart from Rs. 4,000/- per month deceased was getting Rs. 25/- per day towards his diet allowance. In the cross-examination there is no suggestion to this witness pertaining to income of deceased. There is no suggestion that deceased was getting less than Rs. 4,000/- per month. No evidence is led by Insurance Company to show that the income of the deceased was less than Rs. 4,000/- per month. There is no evidence that driver of Mini-bus was not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/per month. In the circumstances we hold that income of the deceased was Rs. 1.000/- per month i.e. Rs. 48.000/- per annum. Deceased was spending /3rd of his income upon himself and remaining 2/3rd of his income upon members of his family and dependency is determined at Rs. 32,000/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased at the time of his death to be 28 years and that he left behind young widow aged 26 years and minor children and parents we apply a multiplier of 18. Therefore, the compensation is determined at Rs. 32,000/- x 18 = 5,76,000/-. Claimant will be further entitled for damages of Rs. 24,000/- under various heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses. loss of consortium etc. etc. The amount of total compensation is modified to Rs. 6 lacs (Rupees six lacs only). Claimants will be further entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of tiling of the appeal. 24,000/- under various heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses. loss of consortium etc. etc. The amount of total compensation is modified to Rs. 6 lacs (Rupees six lacs only). Claimants will be further entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of tiling of the appeal. Since children are minor the amount of compensation shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Said fixed deposit shall be renewed from time to time. 6. Claimants No. 1 to 4 will be entitled to interest on the said deposit. However, after the appellant No.2 attains majority then only application for disboursement from the said amount shall be permissible if claimants are able to prove urgency before the Claims Tribunal by filing an appropriate application. If such application is tiled, we hope and trust that said application shall be decided in accordance with law by the Claims Tribunal after appellant-claimant No.2 attains age of 18 years. However, we clarify that amount of compensation shall be disbursed only to appellants-claimants No. 1 to 4. Appellant-claimant No.5 shall not be entitled to any compensation. His application for award of compensation is dismissed. 7. Appeal succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs.