JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 1975 of 2007 (Afrin v. Mohd. Shafi M.A. No. 1975 of 2007) and M.A. No. 1929 of 2007 (Mubarik Hussain v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. M.A. No. 1929 of 2007). Liability of the insurance company is not disputed. However, by the consent of parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Both the appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal. In M.A. No. 1975 of 2007 widow and two minor children of deceased are Appellants and in M.A. No. 1929 of 2007 father and mother of deceased are Appellants. The Appellants in both the appeals have also prayed for apportionment of payment of compensation granted to them. 3. Both the aforesaid appeals are filed by the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 6.3.2007, passed by learned Additional M.A.C.T., Kukshi, Distt. Dhar, in Claim Case No. 12 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,81,500 with interest to the claimants by way of compensation in the accident occurred on 1.2.2005, causing the death of Hasan with the direction that all the five Appellants shall be entitled to receive 20 per cent each from the award. 4. The facts of the case are that the accident took place on 1.2.2005 at about 10.40 p.m. when deceased Hasan was driving the truck of ownership of Mohd. Shafi bearing registration No. MP 09-KB 9839 and met with an accident due to bursting of right front tyre 5. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and on the basis of material available on record arrived at the conclusion that earning of the deceased was only Rs. 2,000 per month 6. Mr. Akshat Pahadiya, learned Counsel appearing in M.A. No. 1929 of 2007 for parents of deceased Hasan submits that compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. It is also contended that earning of deceased accepted by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,000 per month is on lower side, however, it may be increased looking to the evidence and material available on record. It is further contended by him that because deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, however, multiplier of 18 ought to have been made applicable. 2,000 per month is on lower side, however, it may be increased looking to the evidence and material available on record. It is further contended by him that because deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, however, multiplier of 18 ought to have been made applicable. Accordingly, enhancement may be directed. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal fell into error in only allowing 20 per cent amount of compensation to each of the Appellant, i.e., mother and father, such percentage of compensation ought to have been increased in their favour by way of issuing the direction of apportionment for distribution of amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal. In view of the said submissions a prayer is made to allow the appeal by modifying the impugned award and enhancing the amount of compensation. 7. Mr. Manish Jain, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of widow and two minor children of deceased contends that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. It is also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the salary certificate of deceased of Rs. 3,000 and the evidence adduced in this regard. It is also contended by him that the multiplier of 18 may be made applicable looking to the age of deceased. In view of the said submission prayer is made to enhance the compensation. It is further contended that while issuing the direction to distribute the compensation in five equal shares to the Appellants is erroneous in a case where widow and 2 minor kids have to live their whole life without any financial support, therefore directions may be issued to increase their share in total compensation by setting aside the findings of equal distribution. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Dandwate, counsel for the Respondent insurance company submits that the Tribunal has not fallen into error in accepting the earning of deceased as Rs. 2,000 per month because he was second driver. It is also contended that looking to some papers of criminal case, it appears that it was the deceased, who was negligent at the time of driving of truck, by which the front tyre was burst. In such circumstances, the compensation as granted by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and is not liable to be enhanced. It is also contended that looking to some papers of criminal case, it appears that it was the deceased, who was negligent at the time of driving of truck, by which the front tyre was burst. In such circumstances, the compensation as granted by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and is not liable to be enhanced. So far as the apportionment of compensation is concerned, it is total discretion of court to pass the order in this regard, however, he has nothing to say on the said point. In View of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that these appeals may be dismissed. 9. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and as per the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the factum of accident is not in dispute and in the said accident Hasan has died. It is also not in dispute that claimants are wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased, in such circumstances the findings as recorded by the Tribunal with respect to happening of accident and on the point of age is not required to be interfered with. 10. Now the question arises before this Court that claimants are entitled for how much amount of compensation? It is apparent from certificate that deceased Hasan, who was second driver of truck and was getting Rs. 3,000 salary per month. The accident has taken place in the year 2005, even at the relevant time any driver of a heavy vehicle was earning Rs. 100 per day, in such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court that the salary of deceased cannot be less than Rs. 3,000 per month, therefore, I am of the opinion that Tribunal has fallen into error to accept the earning of deceased as Rs. 2,000 per month at the time of accident. If I accept the earning Rs. 3,000 per month then annual earning comes to Rs. 36,000. If I deduct ?rd towards personal expenses, then annual loss of earning comes to Rs. 24,000. The age of deceased was 25 years, however, multiplier of 18 as per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act would be made applicable. Thus total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000. In conventional heads compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate, however, I grant Rs. 25,000 in the same head, then total compensation comes to Rs. 4,57,000. 24,000. The age of deceased was 25 years, however, multiplier of 18 as per Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act would be made applicable. Thus total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000. In conventional heads compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate, however, I grant Rs. 25,000 in the same head, then total compensation comes to Rs. 4,57,000. In view of the aforesaid, claimants-Appellants of both the appeals are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 4,57,000. 11. Now the question of apportionment of distribution of amount of compensation requires consideration. It is seen from the record that till this time widow has not remarried and two minor children are living along with her. It is also seen that age of mother and father is approximately 60 years at present, considering these facts distribution of compensation is required to be made. The age of widow as per claim petition is about 23 years, who is having 2 minor children and she has to maintain herself and two minors also for a long time. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court 40 per cent of amount of total compensation ought to have been distributed to widow and remaining 60 per cent amount of compensation may be distributed to mother, father and two minors by giving each of them 15 per cent share. In view of the above, widow will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,82,800 and other claimants like mother, father and the two minors will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 68,550 each. It has been brought to my notice that compensation granted by the Tribunal Rs. 2,81,500 has been distributed and they have received the payment as per the directions given by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, it is to be held that widow is entitled to get Rs. 1,82,800 in total while the other Appellants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 68,550 each. The amount already disbursed to the Appellants be deducted and the remaining amount be paid to them as per the above directions. Claims Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs. 2,81,500 and if I deduct the same, then remaining enhanced amount comes to Rs. 1,75,500, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. Claims Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs. 2,81,500 and if I deduct the same, then remaining enhanced amount comes to Rs. 1,75,500, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. After calculating interest on the enhanced amount it would be distributed as per the above directions to all the Appellants. 12. It is made clear that the amounts, which is payable to minor children are required to be deposited in fixed deposit till attaining the age of majority. So far as the payment of compensation of mother and father is concerned they are entitled to get their share in terms of the directions given herein above. If some of the amount has been kept in fixed deposit, it may be released in their favour on making request by them before trial court. So far as the compensation of wife is concerned, it is directed that out of 40 per cent share only 20 per cent shall be released, if she is making request and remaining 20 per cent be kept in fixed deposit. 13. In view of the above, the aforesaid appeals are allowed in part and the directions for fixed deposit issued by the trial court shall stand modified to the extent indicated herein above.