S. SAMVATSAR, B. M. UPTA, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants for challenging the award dated 9. 5. 2000 passed by the Second Additional Member Judge, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 2 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants have filed the claim petition alleging that Rajaram who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 was travelling in jeep No. MP 06-D 262. He was going from Bhind towards Mehgaon. The jeep was driven by Jagannath, respondent no. 1. He was driving the jeep in very high speed and was negligently driving. The jeep dashed against a trolley which was parked on the side of the road. Deceased rajaram was injured in the said accident and due to the injuries, he died on 1. 2. 1998. The claimants who are wife and children of the deceased have filed the application for compensation on the ground that Rajaram was aged about 35 years, who was earning Rs. 125 daily by way of labour. He was a skilled daily labourer. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,83,000. The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and the insurance company has also filed cross- objection for reduction of compensation. ( 4 ) THE issue of negligence is not under challenge in the present appeal. The only question which is for consideration is the amount of compensation. The Claims Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned judgment has given a specific finding that deceased rajaram was a skilled labourer and his daily income was Rs. 125. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 75 per day and assessed the monthly dependency at rs. 2,250 and applied multiplier of 12. The finding about the income is not challenged by the claimants. According to the claimants, the multiplier of award applied by the court is on the lower side. According to the claimants the deceased was 35 years of age, while the post-mortem report shows his age as 40. M. L. C. report shows that the age was 50 years. The finding about the income is not challenged by the claimants. According to the claimants, the multiplier of award applied by the court is on the lower side. According to the claimants the deceased was 35 years of age, while the post-mortem report shows his age as 40. M. L. C. report shows that the age was 50 years. Considering these facts, we hold that the age of the deceased must be 40 to 45 years at the time of accident and apply the multiplier of 15, as his dependency is assessed by the claims Tribunal at Rs. 2,250 per month and the yearly dependency will come to rs. 27,000 and after applying multiplier of 15, compensation comes at Rs. 4,05,000. As the deceased was admitted in the hospital for some days, Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses and funeral expenses. Thus compensation comes to Rs. 4,10,000. Claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss to the estate, etc. The total amount comes to Rs. 4,25,000 (rupees four lakh twenty-five thousand ). The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of filing of this application till its realisation. ( 5 ) AS regards cross-objection raised by insurance company is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that insurance company has complied with the provisions of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence cross-objection stands dismissed. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed. .