ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, they are aggrieved by an award dated 11. 4. 2001 passed by the m. A. C. T. , Multai, District Betul, in Claim case No. 176 of 1998. ( 2 ) IN an accident dated 12. 6. 1998 Chetram, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4 and son of claimant nos. 5 and 6, died. He was driving jeep (No. MP 22-D 0089) and going from Multai to Betul. Near Jeetapaati, tanker (No. MP 23-D 8616)dashed the said jeep. It was claimed that Fakhruddin drove the tanker in a rash and negligent manner. The persons travelling in the jeep sustained injuries. Chetram died on the spot. His age was 30 years. He was a driver, earning rs. 3,000 per month. Report of the accident was lodged as against Fakhruddin at the concerned police station. An offence under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the indian Penal Code was registered. Charge-sheet was filed in the competent court. The vehicle in question was owned by Ravindra and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. Compensation of Rs. 16,70,000 was claimed. ( 3 ) DRIVER and owner of the tanker in their joint written statement contended that deceased himself was negligent. Owner of the jeep and insurer are also necessary parties. ( 4 ) INSURER of the tanker in the written statement contended that deceased himself was negligent. He was not having valid and effective driving licence. Alternatively it was contended that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence. Driver of the tanker was not having valid and effective driving licence, hence, insurer was not liable to make the payment of compensation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has found that accident was caused owing to rash and negligent driving of tanker by Fakhruddin. The negligence on the part of the deceased has not been found to be established. The income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month. At the age of 30 multiplier of 17 has been applied. Compensation of rs. 1,77,000 has been ordered to be paid along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. The income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month. At the age of 30 multiplier of 17 has been applied. Compensation of rs. 1,77,000 has been ordered to be paid along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) MR. Ashok Chakraworty, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, has submitted that the deceased was earning rs. 3,000 per month as deposed to by Anusuiyabai, cw 1, the widow and Natthoo, cw 3, father of the deceased. Appropriate multiplier has not been applied. Multiplier of 18 is applicable, hence, compensation be suitably enhanced. ( 7 ) MR. Pramod Thakeray, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and mr. Sharad Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, have submitted that salary certificate was not filed. Owner of the jeep was not examined by the claimants in support of their case that deceased was drawing emoluments of Rs. 3,000 per month, thus, case for the enhancement of compensation is not made out. ( 8 ) AFTER going through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the assessment of income made by the learned Claims Tribunal at rs. 1,500 per month is on the lower side. The aforesaid witnesses Anusuiyabai, CW 1, widow and Natthoo, CW 3, father of deceased, have stated that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000. Even if there is some exaggeration but safely the income of the deceased can be taken to be Rs. 2,400 per month. Deducting 1/3rd amount towards self expenditure which deceased would have spent on himself, had he been alive as provided in Second Schedule of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs. 1,600, annual rs. 19,200 (Rs. 1,600 x 12 ). The multiplier at the age of 30 years is 18 not that of 17. We apply the said multiplier as widow and children are also the claimants beside the parents, thus, compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,45,600 (Rs. 19,200 x 18 ). In addition, the claimants are entitled for sum of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 on account of loss to estate, Rs. We apply the said multiplier as widow and children are also the claimants beside the parents, thus, compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,45,600 (Rs. 19,200 x 18 ). In addition, the claimants are entitled for sum of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 on account of loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5,000 to the widow on account of loss of consortium, thus, total compensation amount comes to rs. 3,60,100 (rupees three lakh sixty thousand and one hundred ). The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Liability is held to be joint and several of respondents. ( 9 ) RESULTANTLY, appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal partly allowed. .