ORDER Naqvi, J. -- 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by impugned award dated 31.8.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa in Claim Case No. 62/03 for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent No.2 Atul Shah was owner of bus No. MP 12-B/3745 and respondent No.1 Dinesh was driver of the bus on the date of the incident. Respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. was insurer of the bus. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that appellants No. 1 and 2 are daughter of the deceased Sukhlal @ Ramcharan, appellant No. 3 Smt. Anita Bai is widow of the deceased and appellant No.4 Smt. Savitri Bai is mother of the deceased. They were dependent on deceased. Deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month working as carpenter. On 11.5.2003 deceased was coming by motorcycle with Sukhlal son of Tantulal. Sukhlal son of Tantulal was driving motorcycle. Respondent No. 1 by driving bus No. MP 12-B/3745 rashly and negligently dashed motorcycle by front side near village Chhegaon. At the time of accident the motorcycle was stationary. Sukhlal @ Ramcharan, Sukhlal son of Tantulal and Ashok sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Report was lodged and case was registered against respondent No.1. 4. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to appellants. Appellants filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,80,000/- 5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 denied the averments of claim petition. They pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not driving bus rashly and negligently. Sukhlal @ Ramcharan did not die in accident. Sukhlal @ Ramcharan was driving motorcycle in excessive speed rashly under intoxication and dashed it against culvert. No accident caused by bus hence they are not liable to pay compensation to appellants. The defence of respondent No.3 is that the respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident. Sukhlal @ Ramcharan driving motorcycle with two pillion riders. The vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, insurer is not liable to pay compensation amount to appellants. Respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. After hearing both the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,99,000/- alongwith 7% interest. Respondents prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. After hearing both the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,99,000/- alongwith 7% interest. Aggrieved by the impugned award, appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. 7. We have heard both the parties perused impunged award and evidence on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that compensation amount· awarded by Tribunal is very lower side. Learned Tribunal committed error in assessing monthly income of deceased Sukhlal @ Ramcharan. Learned Tribunal also committed error in awarding compensation for customary heads in lower side. He prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount, adequately. Respondent No.3 supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. The only question to be considered in this appeal is adequacy of quantum of awarded by learned Tribunal. No other point has been agitated by learned counsel for both the parties. 10. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the view that learned Tribunal has not committed error in holding age of deceased Sukhlal @ Ramcharan to be in between 30 to 35 years. We firm the finding of Tribunal regarding age of deceased. Anita (AW 1) deposed that her husband Sukhlal @ Ramcharan was a carpenter and used to earn Rs. 9,000/- to 10,000/- per month. Gopal (AW 2) also deposed that deceased was a carpenter and deceased worked with him from 3 to 4 years. Sukhlal @ Ramcharan was earning Rs. 9,000/- to 10,000/- per month. No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by respondents. No documents have been filed by appellants to prove the monthly income of deceased. Looking to the totality of evidence evidence of Anita and Gopal, we are of view that it can be safely held that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/per month from his carpenter's job. Consequently, we hold that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month thus, deceased earning Rs. 36,000/per annum. Certainly, Appellants were dependent on deceased. Appellants ought to have spent 1I3rd amount of his earning if he had been alive. Deducting 1/3rd amount towards expenditure of deceased, the dependency of appellants on deceased comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The age of deceased was in between 30 to 35 years. The suitable multiplier of 18 is applicable to determine the loss of dependency. Appellants ought to have spent 1I3rd amount of his earning if he had been alive. Deducting 1/3rd amount towards expenditure of deceased, the dependency of appellants on deceased comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The age of deceased was in between 30 to 35 years. The suitable multiplier of 18 is applicable to determine the loss of dependency. Consequently, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000x18=4,32,000/Appellants are entitled to get compensation amount towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,32,000/-. In addition to that, appellants are entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- towards customary heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life, loss of love affection inclusive of Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium to appellant No.3 i.e. widow of the deceased. Consequently, appellants are entitled to get total compensation amount of Rs. 4,72,000/from respondents. Certainly, the compensation amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 1,99,000/- to Rs. 4,72,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to indemnify compensation amount to appellants. Appellants No.1 to 3 shall get 80% of compensation amount alongwith proportionate interest and respondent No.4 shall get 20% of amount alongwith proportionate interest. The amount of compensation of respondents No. 1 and 2 shall be deposited as FDR in a Nationalized Bank till they attained age of majority adult. No order as to costs.