Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The claimants are in appeal. They have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal vide Award dated 10th October, 1996. 2. An accident occurred on 18th September, 1992 wherein Om Parkash had died. At the time of his death, Om Parkash was 45 years of age. The claimants who are the widow, five sons and the mother of deceased Om parkash filed a claim petition before the Motor accident claims Tribunal. It was claimed by the claimants that deceased Om Parkash had boarded a Canter No. HNG 2634 for carrying the vegetables from Alampur to Gurgaon. When the Canter reached near Sehrawan, then the driver of the Canter rammed into a stationary Truck No. HYU 7568. Om Parkash died at the spot. It was claimed by the claimants that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter, who was driving the canter at a very fast speed without observing the traffic rules. 3. The learned Tribunal found that driver of the offending vehicle, Ji tender Kumar was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to compensation. The plea raised by the Insurance Company that the driving licence of driver Jitender Kumar was fake was also rejected since it was found that the driving licence had been renewed legitimately. The quantum of compensation was assessed at Rs.2,60,000.00 i. e. Rs.2,52,000.00 on account of the death of Om Parkash and rs.8,000.00 on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 4. The claimants have now approached this Court for enhancement of compensation. 5. After perusal of the records and after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents, I find that a finding of fact has been recorded that Jitender Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle was driving the canter in question rashly and negligently. In this view of the matter the claimants have been rightly held entitled to compensation. The only question which arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation. It has also been found as a fact by the Tribunal that deceased Om parkash, at the time of his death, was an agriculturist. His income has been assessed at Rs.3,000.00 per month. In this view of the matter the claimants have been rightly held entitled to compensation. The only question which arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation. It has also been found as a fact by the Tribunal that deceased Om parkash, at the time of his death, was an agriculturist. His income has been assessed at Rs.3,000.00 per month. However, the learned Tribunal has found that Rs.1,500.00 per month was being pent by Om Parkash upon and dependency has been assessed at rs.1,500.00 per month, multiplier of 14 has been applied thereupon. 6. In my considered view, the dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. Om Parkash was having a large family. The family of the deceased Om parkash Comprised of his aged mother, his widow and five sons. In this manner, it cannot be expected that out of total income of rs.3,000.00 deceased Om Parkash was spending Rs.1,500.00 per month upon himself only and was contributing the remaining rs.1,500.00 towards his family. Consequently it is reasonable to hold that deceased Om parkash was contributing an amount of rs.2,500.00 per month towards his family. Keeping in view the aforesaid dependency and applying the same multiplier of 14 which has been applied by the learned Tribunal the compensation to the claimants comes to rs.4,20,000.00. Additionally, the claimants have been held entitled to an amount of rs.8,000.00 towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In this manner the total amount payable to the claimants would be rs.4,28,000.00. The claimants would also be entitled to interest on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The entire amount of compensation shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 7. The present appeal is consequently allowed in the aforesaid terms.