Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS by Mr. Manish Sunil Jain, Advocate. With the consent of jain, Advocate. Respondent No. 3 by Mr. the parties, heard on merits. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 19. 1. 2007 passed by M. A. C. T. (Fast Track), Kukshi in Claim Case No. 44 of 2006. By the impugned award, the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 1,57,340 to the claimants for the death of Bhursingh, who died in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, i. e. , appellants herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out and if so to what extent? ( 2. ) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the learned tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 3. ) AS observed supra, it is a death case. Learned counsel for appellants submits that deceased was 50 years of age and was agriculturist. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,57,340, a break-up of which is as under: loss of dependency rs. 1,47,840 loss to estate rs. 2,000 loss of consortium rs. 5,000 loss of love and affection rs. 2,500 ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that since the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in applying multiplier of 11, he ought to have applied 16 as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that the amount awarded is on lower side. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that since the age of the deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in applying multiplier of 11, he ought to have applied 16 as per Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that the amount awarded is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that for assessing the loss of dependency, learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at rs. 80 per day for 17 days and Rs. 40 per day for 8 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the death took place on 24. 10. 2005 the income of the deceased ought to have been considered at the rate of Rs. 100 per day for 365 days in a year. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded is just and proper. ( 6. ) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence on record, this court is of the view that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 2,500 per month and the multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be on lower side. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the following amount:###C: \Program Files\Regentdatatech\HTML\judgement_2010_acj_2008_SAURAS0_ 2010_ACJ_2008.HTM### Thus, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000 instead of Rs. 1,57,340. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,37,660 shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent from the date of application. The amount shall be kept in F. D. R. in a nationalised bank in the name of appellant No. 1 in such a manner so that it shall earn the highest rate of interest which shall be payable to the appellants on quarterly basis. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.