JUDGMENT :- J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 29.7.2008, passed by learned M.A.C.T., Ratlam in Claim Case No. 36 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, arising out of motor accident occurred on 19.1.2006, causing death of Bardibai. 2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000. It is pleaded by the claimants i.e., widower, kids, father and mother that the sole bread-earner of the family has died in the accident, however, the compensation as prayed in the claim petition may be awarded. 3. The Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 1,37,000, out of which for loss of dependency Rs. 1,10,000, accepting the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month, applying the multiplier of 11 and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses. In conventional heads, i.e., for the funeral Rs. 2,000, for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000, while Rs. 20,000 has been awarded for conveyance because the dead body has been brought from Katak to Ratlam. According to the appellants the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the impugned award is inadequate and on lower side, which is liable to be enhanced. 4. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle and the issue of liability who is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has already recorded the findings on these issues in favour of the appellants. None of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing cross-appeal or cross- objection. Thus it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on the said issues. 5. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was a housewife and also an agriculturist, however calculation of loss of dependency as made by the Tribunal by accepting notional earning is unreasonable. Thus it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on the said issues. 5. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was a housewife and also an agriculturist, however calculation of loss of dependency as made by the Tribunal by accepting notional earning is unreasonable. For household work and the agricultural work in the year 2006 appropriate earning may be accepted thereafter compensation ought to have been awarded, and also the amount awarded in the head of conveyance Rs. 20,000 is inadequate, while in other heads compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is meagre, however by allowing this appeal enhancement may be directed. 6. On the other hand Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has contended in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on going through the pleadings I find some substance in the arguments of Mr. Jain. For an accident which took place in 2006 even a lady who was a housewife may earn Rs. 2,500 per month, however assuming the earnings to be Rs. 2,500 per month, which annually comes to Rs. 30,000 and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses as deducted by Claims Tribunal, whereby annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 20,000 and looking to the age of the deceased multiplier of 11 which is made applicable, thereby total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,20,000, which is being allowed and Rs. 5,000 is also allowed for conveyance in addition to compensation already granted by Tribunal. In the opinion of this court Rs. 25,000 for conventional heads i.e., for loss of love and affection, for loss of consortium, for loss to estate and for funeral expenses may be allowed, which is being allowed. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,70,000. If we deduct the compensation already granted by the Tribunal Rs. 1,37,000 then remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,33,000 which is being enhanced in addition to the compensation already granted by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced by the sum of Rs. 2,70,000. If we deduct the compensation already granted by the Tribunal Rs. 1,37,000 then remaining amount comes to Rs. 1,33,000 which is being enhanced in addition to the compensation already granted by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced by the sum of Rs. 1,33,000 in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own Costs.