Judgment J.K. Maheshwari, J. ( 1. ) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an Award dated 13th April, 2009, passed by learned 2nd Additional Member, MACT, Khargone (West Nimar) in Claim Case No. 153/2008. By the impugned Award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,88,000.00 with interest @ 6%, arising out of an accident occurred on 20th September, 2007 causing death of Durga Shankar Gujar. ( 2. ) Appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000.00. It is pleaded by the claimants (i.e., wife, son daughter, father and mother) that their bread earner has died in the accident having his earning from agriculture and cleaner work; however, the compensation as prayed in the claim petition may be awarded. ( 3. ) The Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 1,88,000/-, out of which in loss of dependency Rs. 1,70,000/-, accepting the earning of the deceased 15,000/- per annum applying in the multiplier of 17 and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expense. In conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses, consortium and love and affection Rs. 18,000/- has been awarded. Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the deceased was aged 35 years, as per postmortem report, on the date of accident, i.e., 20th September, 2007 and was having agriculture, He was performing work of cleaner, as is apparent from the certificate of Satyam Transport Company. Ext. P/5 and earning Rs. 3,000.00 per month alongwith Rs. 50/- per day as allowances. In view of the said submission it is urged that the notional earning as accepted by the Tribunal Rs. 15,000.00 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 17 the compensation allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is also contended by him that because the number of dependents are five; however, towards personal expense 1/4th deduction ought to have been made. In view of the above, prayer is made to enhance the compensation by allowing this appeal. ( 4. ) On the other hand Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the earning on notional basis Rs. In view of the above, prayer is made to enhance the compensation by allowing this appeal. ( 4. ) On the other hand Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the earning on notional basis Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after adducting 1/3rd and applying multiplier of 17 loss of dependency has rightly been determined. It is also contended by him that in conventional heads Rs. 18,000.00 has rightly been granted, therefore, he compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper. ( 5. ) Perusal of the record indicates that the issue of liability was not disputed; however, the matter was placed in the Lok Adalat, but because the settlement seems not possible therein, therefore, it was released. During the course of hearing it is contended that Rs. 50,000/- was offered for enhancement by the Insurance Company, but because the counsel for the appellants was not agreeable, therefore, the compromise was not possible, though the Insurance Company was willing to settle this mater. It is seen that on earlier occasions as and when the matters of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company have been listed before Lok Adalat, either the officers were not present and if they were present then they were not agree to settle the dispute on the pretext of not having any authority or otherwise it is said that the higher officers have not instructed them to settle the matter. Considering such non- cooperative attitude of the management of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company various orders were passed by this Court and the letters of displeasures were issued by the Registry. The numbers of some of those cases are. Miscellaneous Appeals No. 1060/80,254/09,255/09,1455/ 09,953/09,1314/08,2272/09,1597/08,1713/ 08 and 2507/08. In any case the theory of just and reasonable compensation is essence if difference of the amount offered for settlement by the Insurance Company is much less then it is laudable and writ at large. ( 6. ) In the present case the age of the deceased was 35 years and no other evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company to disprove such age. Thus, from the record this Court can safely accept the age of the deceased as 35 years. To prove the earning of the deceased as cleaner a document Ext. ) In the present case the age of the deceased was 35 years and no other evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company to disprove such age. Thus, from the record this Court can safely accept the age of the deceased as 35 years. To prove the earning of the deceased as cleaner a document Ext. P-5 has been filed by the claimants, but to prove it employer has not been called in the witness box. However, prima facie such a document of having earning of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month alongwith allowance Rs. 50/- per day cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has brought one drive D.W.2 Atik Khan in the witness box, who was a driver of the vehicle whereupon the deceased was working as cleaner. It is stated by him to the investigator that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,000.00 per month alongwith allowances. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has accepted earning of the deceased on notional basis. The argument of Shri Sameer Verma is that in a case of year 1997 Division Bench of this Court has accepted the earning of the deceased Rs. 100/- per day. This is an accident of year 2007; however, after 10 years the earning must be accepted commensurate to such judgment. On the other hand the argument of the Insurance Company is that the notional earning as accepted by the Tribunal is just and proper. Once the cogent evidence to prove the earning is not available on record and as per pleading and evidence the deceased was a cleaner, in such circumstances, minimum wages determined by the Government may be decisive, in the opinion of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I can accept such analogy and determine the earning of the deceased Rs. 3,000.00 per month, which annually comes to Rs. 36,000.00. ( 7. ) In other cases wherein the number of dependents were five, particularly when the children are two alongwith parent this Court has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased however, if we apply the same analogy and deduct 1/3rd from the annual income towards personal expenses then loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 35 years; however, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable. 24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 35 years; however, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable. If we multiply it by 16 then the total loss of dependency comes to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000/-. In conventional head i.e., funeral expenses, consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate also some amount deserves to be allowed. In the opinion of this Court Rs. 25,000/- would be appropriate amount in the said head; however, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,09,000.00. From this amount, if we deduct Rs. 1,88,000.00, which is allowed by the Tribunal then the enhanced amount comes to the tune of Rs. 2,21,000.00, which is liable to be paid to the claimants/ appellants. ( 8. ) In the facts and circumstances of the present case it is apparent that the offer as made by the Insurance Company before Lok Adalat of Rs. 50,000.00 was so unreasonable, therefore, the matter could not be settled. The attitude of the officers of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and their management is not co-operative with the Court. The consequence thereof is that, the claimants, who are entitled to get legitimate amount of compensation, are not being paid the amount well within the time. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that in the present case also the attitude of the officer of the Insurance Company was non co-operative, therefore, it is a fit case in which the appropriate direction may be issued that if the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court has not been paid within a period of one month from today along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application, leviable on the enhanced amount, then the interest @ 12% per annum shall be paid on the said amount. The costs of this appeal Rs. 5,000.00 is also allowed in favour of the appellants.