Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a claimants appeal against the judgment and award dated 27. 4. 2001 in Claim Case No. 17 of 2000 passed by the Twelfth M. A. C. T. , indore. ( 2. ) THE claimants are the young widow, younger brother, father and mother of one devendra Sharma, a Mechanical Engineer, having passed B. E. in the first class. On 14. 5. 1996, when he was driving a car, the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 3862 (of which respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the driver, owner and insurer)which was being driven in a negligent manner, dashed against the said car and Devendra Sharma sustained serious injuries. He died on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident after 6 days. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed the said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 73,00,000. ( 3. ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the tribunal by its judgment and award dated 27. 4. 2001 allowed the claim in part. It held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the truck and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. It, therefore, held that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000 per month or rs. 60,000 per annum. It deducted 40 per cent for the personal and living expenses of the deceased and arrived at the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 36,000. By applying a multiplier of 15, it arrived at a total loss of dependency at Rs. 5,40,000. By adding Rs. 12,000 under conventional heads, it determined the total compensation as Rs. 5,52,000 and awarded the same to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation. ( 4. ) FEELING aggrieved, claimants have filed this appeal contending that compensation awarded is very low. They point out that deceased Devendra Sharma was aged 26 years and had been appointed 2 months prior to the accident, as a Lecturer/instructor in Abhayankar institute on a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000 and, therefore, his monthly income ought to have been taken as Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 5,000. They also submit that the applicable multiplier would be 18, not 15 applied by the Tribunal. 15,000 and, therefore, his monthly income ought to have been taken as Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 5,000. They also submit that the applicable multiplier would be 18, not 15 applied by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for insurer, on the other hand, contended that the impugned award is reasonable and does not call for any interference. On the contentions raised, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low and requires to be increased. ( 5. ) THE evidence shows that deceased was aged 26 years and was a Mechanical engineer having passed B. E. in first class. This is averred in the petition and the widow and father who were examined, have spoken about it. It is neither denied nor challenged in the cross-examination. The petitioners have also examined Anil Abhayankar, director of Abhayankar Institute as PW 4 and also marked the letter of appointment dated 28. 3. 1996 as Exh. Pll to establish that the deceased was appointed on probation in the said institute for a period of six months as a Lecturer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 15,000 from 1. 4. 1996. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to doubt the correctness of the evidence that deceased was employed on a salary of Rs. 15,000. Even otherwise, having regard to the educational qualification and the family background (the evidence shows that his father is an industrialist) of the deceased and future prospects, it can be inferred and assumed that the deceased would have earned at least Rs. 15,000 per month, if he had not died in accident. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of deceased was only Rs. 5,000 by rejecting the evidence of the widow, father and the employer. It is true that the claimants did not produce the salary certificate or document other than the appointment order to prove the income. This is obviously because the deceased died within hardly one month from the date of his appointment. In the circumstances, we accept the evidence that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 per month or Rs. 1,80,000 per annum. We deduct a sum of Rs. 20,000 for income tax and profession tax. The net income was thus Rs. 1,60,000 per annum. ( 6. In the circumstances, we accept the evidence that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 per month or Rs. 1,80,000 per annum. We deduct a sum of Rs. 20,000 for income tax and profession tax. The net income was thus Rs. 1,60,000 per annum. ( 6. ) IT is in the evidence of the father of deceased Devendra Sharma, PW 2 that the said Balakrishna Sharma (father) owns a factory and is an income tax assessee. The father was not a dependant. The younger brother was also not a dependant. In fact, two months prior to accident and death, the deceased was himself a dependant of his father as he was not employed. The father who has been examined as PW 2 nowhere stated in his evidence that he and his wife (parents of the deceased) were dependent on the deceased. In the circumstances, we have to take it that only the widow was a dependant of the deceased. Therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct 50 per cent of the net income (instead of 1/2rd) towards the personal and living expenses. Thus the annual loss of dependency was rs. 80,000. Looking to the age of the deceased, i. e. , 26 years, the multiplier of 18 would be proper. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 80,000 x 18 = Rs. 14,40,000. We also award Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000 towards loss to estate, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses and rs. 30,000 towards treatment during 6 days, transportation for treatment and for other miscellaneous expenses. The total compensation would be Rs. 14,95,000, rounded off to Rs. 15,00,000. ( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the insurer strenuously contended that income ought not to have been accepted as Rs. 15,000 per month merely on the basis of the letter of appointment, Exh. P11. We may, therefore, calculate the income by another method also. The evidence shows that the deceased was a young engineering graduate and but for his appointment as lecturer, he would have assisted his father in running his industry. In fact there is evidence that he had earlier been assisting his father in regard to the industry. Therefore, we can assume the income as at least Rs. 12,000 per month or Rs. 1,44,000 per annum. Deducting rs. In fact there is evidence that he had earlier been assisting his father in regard to the industry. Therefore, we can assume the income as at least Rs. 12,000 per month or Rs. 1,44,000 per annum. Deducting rs. 15,000 for income tax and profession tax and one-third of the balance towards living and personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family would have been rs. 86,000. By applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency would be rs. 15,48,000. With additions under conventional heads and treatment expenses, as stated in the earlier para, total compensation would be Rs. 16,00,000. ( 8. ) WE adopt the lesser of two amounts, rs. 15,00,000 as the compensation. Having regard to the fact that the widow is hardly 21 years old and the mother is aged 46 years and having regard to the fact that the father is an industrialist and mother was not financially dependent on the deceased, we are of the view that the amount awarded should be apportioned at the rate of 80 per cent and 20 per cent respectively between the widow and the mother. The father and younger brother who are not dependants will not be entitled to any share in the compensation. ( 9. ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow this appeal in part as follows: (i) The compensation is increased from rs. 5,52,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 (rupees fifteen lakh ). (ii) While the amount of Rs. 5,52,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, the enhanced amount will carry interest only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. (iii) The apportionment shall be of 80 per cent and 20 per cent respectively to widow and mother (appellant Nos. 1 and 4 ). The deposits shall be as per order of the Tribunal. (iv) Parties shall bear their respective costs. Appeal partly allowed.