ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 2764/09 which is the appeal filed by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company against the award dated 6 7.2009 passed by I MACT, Indore in claim case No. 5/2009 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and in a death case, a sum of Rs. 2,74,000/- was awarded holding the respondents liable for payment of compensation. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount, present appeal has been filed while MA No. 2764/09 which has been filed by Insurance Company, grievance of respondent No. 3/- Insurance Company is that respondent No.3 has wrongly been held liable for compensation. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that deceased was Girdharilal who died on 1.9.2007. Learned counsel awarded a sum of Rs. 2,74,000/- breakup of which is as under: Rs. 2,64,000/- towards loss of dependency Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs 5,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of estate. 3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that income of deceased has been assessed @ Rs. 120/- per day and 25 days in a month are taken into consideration. It is submitted that after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of 11, the amount has been awarded. It is submitted that multiplier of 11 has wrongly been applied which ought to have been 13 keeping in view the age of appellant No.1. It is Submitted that income has been assessed on lower side and on other heads also the amount awarded is on lower side. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that since age of the deceased was 52 years, therefore, multiplier of 11 has rightly been applied. So far as income is concerned, learned counsel submits that since deceased was agriculturist therefore learned Tribunal has lightly taken 25 days in a month for assessment of loss of dependency. It is submitted that amount awarded is just and proper. 5. So far as liability is concerned, learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No.3 liable for compensation. It is submitted that deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and was not possessing any goods. It is submitted that amount awarded is just and proper. 5. So far as liability is concerned, learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the respondent No.3 liable for compensation. It is submitted that deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and was not possessing any goods. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the case that no goods receipt was produced and no goods were seized by the police at the relevant time to ascertain the quantity of goods which deceased was carrying with him. Learned counsel submits that even if it is assumed that deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle along with goods, then too respondent No.3 cannot be held liable for compensation as deceased was not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle. It is submitted that appeal filed by respondent No.3 be allowed and appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. v. Cholleti Bharatmma 2008 ACJ 268 , wherein gratuitous passengers were travelling along with their goods. Hon. apex Court held that Insurance Company is not liable for death or injuries sustained by passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Vimlesh Gupta, 2010 ACJ 1987 wherein passengers were travelling along with their goods in a matador but were not sitting in cabin and were sitting in the backside of the vehicle, this Court held that insurance company is not liable. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. v. Kaushalya Devi, 2008 ACJ 2144 wherein deceased was a vegetable dealer and he was travelling in the truck for collecting empty vegetable boxes, it was held by Hon. apex Court that insurance company is not liable as deceased was not travelling in the truck as owner of goods viz. vegetables and he was travelling for a purpose other than the one for which he was entitled to travel in public carriage goods vehicle. 6. From perusal of record it appears that learned Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 11, has taken into consideration the age of the deceased which was 52 years, therefore, the multiplier has wrongly been applied. vegetables and he was travelling for a purpose other than the one for which he was entitled to travel in public carriage goods vehicle. 6. From perusal of record it appears that learned Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 11, has taken into consideration the age of the deceased which was 52 years, therefore, the multiplier has wrongly been applied. So far as income of deceased is concerned, since the accident is of the year 2007, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as Rs. 120/- per day. However, this Court is of tile view that while assessing the compensation income ought to have been taken for all the 30 days and not for 25 days. it appears that on account of loss of dependency and other heads the amount awarded is on lower side. In view of this, appellants are entitled for the following amount :- Rs. 3,10,000/- towards loss of dependency Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate Rs. 10.000/- towards loss of love and affection. Rs. 3,35,000/- total Thus, appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- instead of Rs.2,74,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 61,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application. 7. So far as liability of respondent No.3 is concerned, from perusal of record, it appears that to prove the case appellants have filed the documents relating to criminal case Ex. P/2 is FIR which was lodged on 1.9.2007 itself at 7.00 a.m. while accident took place at 5.30 p.m., which has been lodged by Bhandari Choudhari wherein it is mentioned that complainant was going with deceased Girdharilal in the offending truck along with vegetables. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving, the offending truck tooled down. It has been further stated in the complaint that since the offending truck was carrying vegetables, therefore after the accident the driver has taken the offending vehicle to the vegetable market. Apart from the documentary evidence, appellant has examined Smt. Shantabai as AW-1 and Manoj who was cleaner on the offending truck at the relevant time as A W-2. It also appears that no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. 8. Apart from the documentary evidence, appellant has examined Smt. Shantabai as AW-1 and Manoj who was cleaner on the offending truck at the relevant time as A W-2. It also appears that no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. 8. In the FIR (Ex.P/2) it has come that offending truck was loaded with vegetable. It is also mentioned in the FIR that in spite of accident, since the truck was loaded with the vegetable which was parishable, therefore, the truck went to vegetable market. Shantabai in para-9 of her cross-examination has stated that offending Eicher truck was loaded with cauliflower. Other witness examined by the appellants was Manoj who was the cleaner has also stated in his cross-examination that offending vehicle was loaded with vegetables. PW-1 Laxminarayan in para 8 of his cross-examination has stated that vegetables were belonging to deceased Girdhari. Tejram choudhary PW-4 who was the son of the deceased has slated that deceased was having 8 bighas of land. In the matter of Indarlal v. Vijay Kumar, 2008 (II) MPWN 16 , wherein goods vehicle was loaded with vegelables of deceased, a Division Bench of this Court held that insurer is liable. In rebuttal, no effort was made by respondent No.3 to examine the driver of the truck and no effort was made to get the matter investigated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of any evidence only because deceased was not travelling in the cabin, and in absence of any cross-examination to the effect that deceased was not sitting in the cabin, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No.3 on the ground that offending vehicle was a goods vehicle. 9. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced as stated above and respondent No.3 is held liable for payment of compensation and M.A. No. 2764/09 which is the appeal filed by Insurance company stands dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of M.A. No. 2764/09.