Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The impugned Award dated 11-09-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 143 of 2005 has given rise to the filing of these two appeals -A.O. No. 816 of 2006 and A.O. No. 654 of 2006. 2. The claimants have filed A.O No. 816 of 2006 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas A.O. No. 654 of 2006 is at the behest of the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis against the Award. 3. The claimants, who are unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Indal Singh, claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for his death in the motor accident on 22-062005, when his Motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-04B-1552 was dashed by the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing registration No. HR-1 Q-1631 resulting in multiple serious injuries to Indal Singh, who succumbed to those injuries during the course of his treatment in Government Hospital, Khatima. The claimants pleaded that deceased Indal Singh was an able bodied person aged about 25 years; he was having agricultural land to the extent of 30 big has and 4 cows and 4 buffaloes; and he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture and by selling milk. 4. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle Toyato Qualis contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the motorcyclist himself was negligent and as such was responsible for the accident. The owner further pleaded that as the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be that of the Insurance Company. 5. The claimants examined PW1 Smt. Shivratri and PW2 Omkar Singh in support of their claim, whereas the owner of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis examined DW1 Ramesh Bahadur Thapainrebuttal. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Indal Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22-06-2005; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with the multiplier of '18', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 4,32,000/-. By awarding further sums of Rs. 2,000/towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- as compensation for the death of Indal Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis to pay interest on the above amount of compensation at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 8. Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis, alone, was responsible for the accident, whereas it was a case of contributory negligence, wherein the driver of the Toyota Qualis as well as, the Motorcylist (deceased) equally contributed to the accident; in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month; and in selecting the higher multiplier of '18'. 9. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in A.O. No. 816 of 2006), on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in awarding interest at the rate of 5% per annum only. 10. The Tribunal's finding that the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis was solely responsible for the accident is based on the eye-witness account of PW2 Omkar Singh. He has categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis brought his vehicle at an excessive speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Though this witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination, which may render his evidence unworthy of credence. He has categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis brought his vehicle at an excessive speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Though this witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination, which may render his evidence unworthy of credence. The evidence of OW 1 Ramesh 'Sahadur Thapa, the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis, to the effect that the deceased himself was negligent and dashed against his Toyota Qualis is apparently an afterthought as the driver did not lodge any report with the police. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the evidence of PW2 Omkar Singh by discarding the evidence of OW 1 Ramesh Sahadur Thapa that the driver of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis was solely responsible for the accident. 11. In a motor claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court, in the case of T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. S. Rajapriya reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236, observed in para 8 to 10 : "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. . 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." 12. Now, we propose to examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 4,39,000/awarded by the Tribunal, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The claimants pleaded that deceased Indal Singh used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture and by selling milk. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the agricultural land can be cultivated by the claimants by hiring agricultural labour. The Tribunal, therefore, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,0001- per month. The evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased is not of clinching nature. In this state of evidence, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to assess the income of the deceased on its own estimate. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the assessment 'of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 14. Similarly, the assessment of the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- per annum by the Tribunal by deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses cannot be found fault with. 15. Deceased Indal Singh was aged about 25 years whereas his widow claimant No.1 Smt. Shivratri was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and two minor children Km. Deepika and Master Anees were aged 7 years and 1 year respectively. The only son of the deceased (claimant Anees) will take at least 20-22 years to become an earning member. The widow of the deceased would be required to spend substantial amount on the education of her children and marriage of her daughter Deepika. The multiplier of '18', selected by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is appropriate and does not call for any interference. 16. The widow of the deceased would be required to spend substantial amount on the education of her children and marriage of her daughter Deepika. The multiplier of '18', selected by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is appropriate and does not call for any interference. 16. The Tribunal has certainly fallen into error in awarding sum of Rs. 2,000/- only towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate. We, therefore, award Rs. 5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses; Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Estate; and Rs. 5,000/- towards Loss of Consortium to the widow. 17. With the above addition, the claimants become entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 4,47,000/- for the death of Indal Singh in the motor accident. 18. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 5% per annum is also on the lower side. By taking into account the prevalent rate of interest on deposits in the Nationalised Banks, we award interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount of compensation by the insurance Company before the Tribunal in compliance of the interim order dated 19-10-2006. 19. The compensation of Rs. 4,47,0001- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, when examined in the context of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of S. Rajapriya (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. For' the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement (A.O. No. 816 of 2006) is allowed in part and the compensation of Rs. 4,39,0001- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,47,0001-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 5% per annum is also modified to 7% per annum. The appeal filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle Toyota Qualis (A.O. No. 654 of 2006) fails and is hereby dismissed. 21. The sum of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited by the Insurance Company as mandatory deposit, be remitted to the concerning Claims Tribunal immediately. 22. No order as to costs.