Judgment Manak Mohta, J.—This appeal is directed by the claimant against the Judgment and Award dt. 30.10.1991 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in MACT Case No.50 of 1987 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,48,000/- plus interest @ 12% per annum as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this case, are that on 24.03.1987, while deceased Rayees Khan was driving the Jeep bearing No. RRT 7250 was going from Udaipur to Dungarpur. At that time, a Truck bearing No. RJJ 405 was coming from opposite side. The said Truck was being driven by its driver (respondent No.1) in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. It was further stated that near Dungarpur Railway Station, the said Truck hit the jeep, on account of which, the deceased sustained several injuries, resulting into death during treatment in hospital on 25.03.1987. A report of this incident was registered at police station. It was submitted that the police after usual investigation, filed challan against the driver of the offending truck. It was further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 30 years old and he was driver and was earning Rs.1200/- per month as a salary. The entire family was dependent on his income. All appellants are sons and daughter of the deceased. His wife has also expired just after the occurrence of the said accident. It is alleged that due to untimely death of the deceased in accident, the appellants suffered a huge monetary loss and also deprived of love and affection. They filed a Claim Petition for awarding compensation of Rs. 3,22,000/- in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur. Initiallly, the claim petition was filed by the widow, minor sons and daughter of the deceased but thereafter the widow herself died, therefore, her name was struck off from array of the claimants and other minor claimants were represented by their Natural Guardian-Ishaq Khan S/o Niyaz Khan R/o Dungarpur. Now by the time, they all become major. 3. A joint reply to the claim petition was filed by the driver and the owner of the Truck stating therein that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said jeep, hence, they are not responsible for any compensation. Now by the time, they all become major. 3. A joint reply to the claim petition was filed by the driver and the owner of the Truck stating therein that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said jeep, hence, they are not responsible for any compensation. In reply, it was also stated that the concerned truck is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Insurance Company also filed reply on the same line and denied its liability for the payment of compensation. In alternative, it was also submitted that their liability is limited. Further it was also submitted that as the accident involved of two vehicles, therefore, it is a case of composite negligence. Thus, if any objection arises for compensation, it should be proportionate accordingly. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- ß1- vk;k fnukad 21-03-1987 dks e`rd Jh eksgEen jbZl dh e`R;q okgu pkyd Jh okftn vyh }kjk viuh Vªd la[;k vkj-ts-ts- 405 dks rst xfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ gS\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k Jh eksgEen jbZl dh e`R;q ds dkj.k {kfriwfrZ jkfÓk #i;s 3]22]000@& vFkok vU; dksbZ jkfÓk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gk¡ rks fdruk o fdlls\ 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k ,okMZ jkfÓk ij 12 izfrÓkr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gk¡] rks fdruk o fdlls\ 4- nknjlhA %% vfrfjä rudh;kr %% 5- D;k rFkkdfFkr ,DlhMs.V e`rd jbZl dh d.VªhC;wVjh usxyhtsUl ds dkj.k gqvk] ;fn gk¡ rks mldk D;k vlj gS\ 6- D;k ekfyd thi vkj-vkj-Vh- 7250 rFkk mä thi dh chekdrkZ daiuh vkoÓ;d i{kdkj gSA\ 7- D;k vkoÓ;d i{kdkj ds vHkko esa Dyse pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\Þ 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck driven by respondent No.1 and further held responsible for causing accident, in which, Rayees Khan had lost his life. The learned Tribunal further found that the said truck was insured with the Insurance Company (respondent No.3) and on that basis, the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the truck were held responsible for compensation, which was determined to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- but the learned Tribunal further held that the responsibility of the Insurance Company is upto the extent of Rs.50,000/- vide judgment dt. 30.10.1991. 6. 1,50,000/- but the learned Tribunal further held that the responsibility of the Insurance Company is upto the extent of Rs.50,000/- vide judgment dt. 30.10.1991. 6. Being dis-satisfied with the amount of Award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancing the amount of compensation. Notices of appeal were given to the respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal and carefully gone through the material available on record. 8. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and has passed an erroneous judgment. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and determined income of Rs. 500/- per month. It was asserted that he was driver having long experience and was drawing Rs.1200/- per month and this fact has been proved by the oral statements of the witnesses and there was no rebuttal on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve these statement. It was thus prayed that taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.1200/-, the compensation should have been awarded. 9. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted one tenth amount of compensation on the basis of one time payment compensation. It was urged that this type of deduction was not found justified by the judicial precedents. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that a meager amount of compensation has been awarded under other heads. The present appellants were the minor children of the deceased and they were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to untimely death in accident, they have been deprived from income as well as love, affection and proper guardianship. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration these aspects in right perspective. 10. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that against the said judgment and award, owner of the offending vehicle Mohd. Idris also filed an appeal before this Court challenging the validity of the order on the ground that the total responsibility to pay compensation to the claimants is on the Insurance company. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Idris also filed an appeal before this Court challenging the validity of the order on the ground that the total responsibility to pay compensation to the claimants is on the Insurance company. The appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20/92 and it was disposed of with the observation that the responsibility of Insurance company is upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. In view of this, it was stated on behalf of the appellants that Insurance company should be held responsible upto Rs. 1,50,000/- and beyond the said amount, the owner should be held responsible for the payment. On these submission, it was prayed that the appeal may be allowed and compensation award may be modified and enhanced compensation be determined. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention and submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable. No cogent proof of income of deceased has been produced. The learned Tribunal has therefore, assessed a reasonable amount of income. It was urged that there is no scope of enhancement of compensation amount and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have considered the rival submissions placed by both the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the findings and conclusion drawn thereon by the learned Tribunal. The main point which emerges for consideration is that whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just and reasonable and it requires further modification by way of enhancement? 13. So far as the occurrence of accident is concerned, I have seen the finding of learned Tribunal and there is no dispute raised on the part of the respondents. The finding on Issue No.1 is based on documentary evidence. It is evident that a report of the accident was lodged at the concerned police station and police authorities after a thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending truck. On the basis of material placed before the Tribunal, Issue No.1 has rightly been decided, thus, the finding is maintained. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.500/- per month. But in this respect, there is statement of witnesses in which they have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased to be Rs.500/- per month. But in this respect, there is statement of witnesses in which they have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 1200/- per month and there is no rebuttal from the opposite side. Looking to the fact that the deceased was engaged in driving, the income by way of salary stated by the witnesses does not seem to be excessive. The tribunal has further applied the multiplier of 25 taking into consideration the age of deceased as 30 years at the time of accident. In my considered opinion, taking of multiplier of 25 is not sustainable, the same is not proper as there are numerous decisions on this point holding that looking to the age, the multiplier, it should not have been more than 15. Thus, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal requires reconsideration. Accordingly, taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.1200/- per month and after deducting the one third amount as usual expenditure on himself, the amount comes to Rs.800/- and on that basis, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.800 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 1,44,000/-. 15. Further, the learned Tribunal has deducted 10% amount as one time payment but looking to the facts of the case, this type of deduction is not justifiable. Thus, the deduction made by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- under other heads of love and affection and Rs. 1000/- for funeral expenses. This amount is also not found to be reasonable. The deceased was survived by five children of tender age. They have been deprived from love and affection and also proper guardianship. Considering these aspects, the amount under the head of love and affection is enhanced from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- plus Rs. 1000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,75,000/-. The respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the payment subject to the limit of the Insurance Company upto Rs.1,50,000/-. 16. Thus, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. 12,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- plus Rs. 1000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,75,000/-. The respondents are jointly and severally responsible for the payment subject to the limit of the Insurance Company upto Rs.1,50,000/-. 16. Thus, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20/1992, the responsibility for payment of compensation upto Rs.1,50,000/- is placed on Insurance company and for the remaining amount, the owner and driver of the vehicle have been held jointly and severally responsible. 17. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that compensation amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,75,000. On depositing the same, the enhanced amount be distributed equally amongst all the claimants. 18. The claimants will be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the application i.e. 29.05.1987. Out of the total compensation amount, for which, the respondents are held jointly and severally held responsible, as per the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20/1992, the respondent Insurance company is liable to pay upto the prescribed limit and the driver and owner of the vehicle are held liable to pay the remaining amount. 19. It is directed that the respondents shall make payment of the compensation amount including the enhanced amount within two months from the date of order, failing which the appellants will be free to initiate recovery proceedings against the respondent Insurance company upto the prescribed limit and against the owner and driver of the vehicle for the remaining amount. 20. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost be made easy.