ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by an award dated 8.11.2000 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. 2. In an accident dated 18.9.1995, Mohd. Sarfuddin who was the driver of the truck and was going from Vijnour to Gujrat died. Another driver was Dinesh Kumar Soni. Dinesh Kumar drove the truck in rash and negligent manner, deceased asked Dinesh Kumar to slow down the speed, however, he did not pay any heed to the advise and dashed the stationary truck near a culvert near Ghatigaon, District Gwalior. Sarfuddin and Cleaner Mukesh died on the spot, the driver abandoned the truck and ran away, an offence was registered at Crime No. 81/95 under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC as against driver of the truck Deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of salary and Rs. 50/- per day by way of allowance, thus, his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month, he used to give a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the family. Compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- was claimed. Truck was owned by Mohd. Yasin and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. The driver and owner were proceeded ex parte. Insurer in the written statement interalia denied the averments contending that excessive compensation was claimed. The claimants were not dependent upon earning of deceased, driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, deceased was not a driver in the vehicle in question, he was travelling as a passenger, thus, risk of passenger was not covered, thus, insurer was not liable to make payment of compensation. 4. Claims Tribunal has found that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of driver of truck Dinesh Kumar. Deceased was a driver of the truck, income of the deceased has been assessed at the notional figure of Rs. 15,000/- per annum prescribed for non-earning member, making 1/4th deduction applying the multiplier of 16 compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- inclusive of customary amount has been awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. 5. It is submitted by appellants' counsel that earning of deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month, appropriate multiplier has not been applied at the age of 35 years, thus, just compensation be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is submitted by appellants' counsel that earning of deceased ought to have been taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month, appropriate multiplier has not been applied at the age of 35 years, thus, just compensation be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned .counsel appearing for Insurer has submitted that it appears that deceased was not the driver of the truck as such risk of passenger was not covered, insurer has been wrongly held liable to make payment of compensation. However, he has fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by insurer assailing the findings recorded by Claims Tribunal. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that deceased was a driver of the truck in question, however, truck was driven by yet. another driver, namely, Dinesh Kumar, finding in that regard recorded by Claims Tribunal is based on evidence, no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by insurer, driver or owner, thus, finding in that regard is hereby confirmed. 8. Coming to question of quantum of compensation, it is clear that deceased was a driver. There is statement of Smt. Maqsoodan (CW 1) that deceased used to earn Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of salary and Rs. 50/- per day by way of allowance, thus, his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. He was giving to the family a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, similar is the statement of Maqsood (CW 2). However, it would be appropriate to assess the income of deceased inclusive of allowance at Rs.2,500/- per month, thus, annual income comes to Rs. 30,000/-, considering the number of dependents to be six including the widow aged 30 years, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/14th amount as deducted by Claims Tribunal towards self- expenditure of deceased had he been alive. Thus, annual loss of dependent comes to Rs. 22,500/-. Multiplier of 17 is applicable at the age of 35 years, same is the age mentioned in the postmortem report. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 22,500 x 17 = Rs. 3,82,500/-. In Addition, the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life, funeral expenses and inclusive of a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to be awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 22,500 x 17 = Rs. 3,82,500/-. In Addition, the claimants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life, funeral expenses and inclusive of a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to be awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 3,82,500/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 4,07,500/- (Rs. Four lacs seven thousand and five hundred only). Thus compensation enhanced by this Court to carry the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.