Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by award dated 2. 3. 2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, shivpuri in Claim Case No. 23 of 1999 (old 92 of 1998 ). ( 2. ) ON 27. 6. 1997 the accident took place at Madhav Chowk, Shivpuri caused by the truck No. MPG 6939, driven by Hanif khan, owned by Sanno Khan and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The truck was driven by driver rashly and negligently in which narendra sustained injuries and died. Deceased was aged 20 years. He was student of B. A. first year and was to join the service as supervisor in a private firm. On account of his death, report was lodged and offence was registered against the driver under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet has been filed. It was submitted that if Narendra was alive, he would have earned Rs. 5,000 per month which the claimants are deprived of. ( 3. ) THE owner and driver in the written statement contended that liability should be imposed on the insurance company as driver was having valid and effective driving licence and driver was acquitted in the criminal case. In the reply it was contended by the insurance company that the driver was not having valid and effective licence as such owner and driver were liable to make the payment of compensation. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver Hanif Khan and it was not established that driver was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 2,300 per month, applying the multiplier of 13, a total compensation of Rs. 1,24,800 has been awarded. Being aggrieved with the award, this appeal is filed for enhancement. ( 5. ) I have heard learned counsel for parties, gone through the record of the case. The factum of accident and negligence of the driver has not been disputed. The only question disputed was about the quantum of compensation. ( 6. ) IT is clear that the deceased was aged 20 years. He was student of B. A. first year. The appointment letter, Exh. The factum of accident and negligence of the driver has not been disputed. The only question disputed was about the quantum of compensation. ( 6. ) IT is clear that the deceased was aged 20 years. He was student of B. A. first year. The appointment letter, Exh. P1, has been produced as per that deceased had yet to join the appointment on the post of supervisor at rs. 2,300 per month basic salary, allowances were to be paid separately. However, he was unable to join due to his death before joining. ( 7. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to consider as the deceased was obtaining the education of b. A. first year and was offered appointment at Rs. 2,300 per month on the basic salary, allowances were to be paid separately, even, if the appointment was not made at Rs. 2,500 per month, the deceased would have earned Rs. 2,500 per month had he been alive. Thus, his annual income is assessed at Rs. 30,000 per annum, 1/3rd deduction is made as that amount deceased would have spent on himself, if alive. ( 8. ) CONSIDERING the age of the deceased to be 20 years as well as age of his mother to be 40 years, the multiplier of 16 has to be applied. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 20,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,20,000. In addition, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 20,000 on account of loss to estate, loss of expectancy of life and funeral expenses. Thus, total sum of Rs. 3,40,000 is awarded. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realisation. Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.