Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS claimant (hereinafter referred to the claimants) initiated an action under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Dewas for grant of compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- forthe death of Jate Istakar, a driver in Public Works department, who died in an accident caused due to dashing of the truck bearing registration no. MP/09-KA/5305. ( 2. ) IT was contended before the Tribunal that his monthly salary was Rs. 8,142/- and he had left behind two wives and six children. As one of the daughters was given in marriage she was not brought on record as a respondent. It was put forth that his monthly contribution to the family was considerably high as he maintained the family with immense love, care and affection. He was aged 52 years and by his untimely death immense loss had been caused for which the compensation was sought. ( 3. ) THE claim put forth by the claimants was resisted by the insurer on the ground that there had been breach of terms and conditions of policy; that the claim was quite exorbitant andthattheinsurerwas not liable to indemnify the owner. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal on the basis of the material brought on record came to hold that the deceased had met with accidental death; that there had been no violation of terms and conditions of the policy, that the take-bone salary of the appellant was Rs. 6,541/- per month and thereby the yearly income was rs. 78,492/-, that the yearly contribution to the family was Rs. 5,89,108/-, that the claimants were entitled to compensation of rs. 5,89,108/- which included loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and medical expenses; that the second wife and her children were entitled to get rs. 3,59,108/- and the first wife and her children were entitled to Rs. 2,30,000/-, and further that interest accruable at the rate of 6% would go to second wife as she was the mother-guardian of two minor children. ( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. R. G. Bapat, learned counsel forthe appellant, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, mr. S. S. Swarnakar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, insurerand Mr. G. K. Neema, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, be it noted the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the second wife and her children. ( 6. ( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. R. G. Bapat, learned counsel forthe appellant, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, mr. S. S. Swarnakar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, insurerand Mr. G. K. Neema, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, be it noted the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the second wife and her children. ( 6. ) THOUGH many a contention was initially advanced but eventually Mr. Bapat restricted his arguments to one aspect namely, the tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased inasmuch as he was under the circumstances, required to maintain two wives and five children. ( 7. ) MR. Neema supported the aforesaid stand. However, he contended the apportionment of amount and benefit of interest that has been exclusively conferred on the second wife are not correct. ( 8. ) MR. Pradeep Gupta and Swarnakar, appearing for the insurer has submitted that tribunal has rightly determined the dependency and there is no warrant of any interference. As far as interest component is concerned, learned Counsel for the insurer has submitted that it is the discretion of the court and depends upon the obtaining factual matrix. ( 9. ) ON a perusal of the award and the material brought on record, it is perceivable that 1/3rd of the income has been excluded on the head of personal expenses and 2/3rd has been taken into consideration forthe purpose of computing the amount of contribution. ( 10. ) MR. R. D. Bapat, and Mr. G. K. Neema, learned Counsels submit that if unit system is adopted the dependency will go quite high. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel forthe insurer submits that in a case of this nature, unit system need not be applied but the simple method of exclusion of 1/3rd towards personal expenses should be accepted as correct. From the factual scenario projected it is evincible that the deceased had a large family to look after. Underthe circumstances, he would have been required to spend more on the family and less on himself. Thus, we are inclined to think that he would be spending 1/4th on himself and contributing the balance to the family. Therefore, the yearly contribution that has been computed by the Tribunal has to be modified and on such modification the same would come to Rs. 58,869/ -. We make it a round figure of Rs. Thus, we are inclined to think that he would be spending 1/4th on himself and contributing the balance to the family. Therefore, the yearly contribution that has been computed by the Tribunal has to be modified and on such modification the same would come to Rs. 58,869/ -. We make it a round figure of Rs. 58,870/ -. The multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied and hence, we apply the same. The compensation, thus on this score would come to Rs. 58,870/- x 11 = rs. 6,47,560/ -. The Tribunal has awarded rs. 13,500/- on other heads. We affirm the same. Hence, in toto, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,60,860/ -. Out of the differential amount 60% shall go to the second wife and her children, and 40% shall go to first wife and herchildren, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal. The differential amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the Tribunal till the date of payment. ( 11. ) IT is worthy to note that the Tribunal has directed that entire interest component shall be given to the second wife. We are of the opinion that as there had been appropriate apportionment with regard to the main part of compensation, the interest part also should be apportioned on prorata basis. Hence, we direct that 60% interest shall be given to the second wife and her children and 40% shall be given to the first wife and her children. If the second wife has already been given the entire interest as per the direction of the tribunal the same shall be computed and after determining the modified component as fixed by the rest shall be deducted from the enhanced differential sum and be disbursed accordingly. ( 12. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.