Judgment Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No.32 of 1996, awarding compensation for the death of their father, the present appeal is filed by the claimants-son and daughter. 2. In support of appeal, Mr. Jetha, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal did not even think of awarding just compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/-only towards the compensation for the death of appellants' father. According to him, the deceased was working as a Manager with a press with salary of Rs.3,000/-per month and he was of the age of 52 years. The Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that the son had got himself employed after the death of his father while the daughter got married, and therefore they did not require compensation, ignoring the evidence on record to show that both the children after the death of their father became orphan and by way of compulsion son was required to get employment while daughter was got married after taking loan but the loss of father caused to the children had not been taken into consideration and the Award passed by the Tribunal is nothing but unjust award. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the Award and for award of just compensation. 3. Mr. Dhanagare, learned counsel for respondent no.2, opposed the appeal and prayed for its dismissal. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and Award so also the evidence on record and proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, following points arise for my determination and my findings are recorded against them. (i) Whether the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs.60,000/-only as compensation for the death of Ramnarayan? Yes. (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum as against 7%? Yes. 5. There is a finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was caught under the rear wheel of the truck and the driver of the truck was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Thus, there is no need for me to dwell on that aspect. 6. I have seen the evidence of Dinesh and the salary certificate (Ex.34) which shows that Ramnarayan was working as Manager in the press and he was being paid salary of Rs.3000/-per month. Thus, there is no need for me to dwell on that aspect. 6. I have seen the evidence of Dinesh and the salary certificate (Ex.34) which shows that Ramnarayan was working as Manager in the press and he was being paid salary of Rs.3000/-per month. He was working from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. The age of deceased has been taken by the Tribunal as 54 years, with which I find no fault. On the date of accident, Ramnarayan was going on his bicycle when he was hit by a truck. The Tribunal recorded a reason that on the date of accident both the appellants were students, but they did not file any document to show that they were students, which is wholly irrelevant. The Tribunal further observed that after the death of his father appellant no.1-son had abandoned the education and had taken employment at Rs.1200/-per month. Not only that, the appellant-daughter was married. This is another irrelevant reason. The Tribunal has not considered the fact that the children became orphan and were compulsorily required to leave the education and do the job for their survival. The Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence merely because it was not stated how much amount appellant no.1 had borrowed for the marriage of his sister. The Tribunal then relied on some decision that son and daughter having become major are not entitled for compensation. After giving reasons the Tribunal suddenly came to conclusion that Rs.60,000/-would be sufficient for the death of Ramnarayan. Thus, in my opinion, there is confusion on the part of the Tribunal in understanding the case of motor accident claim compensation. Be that as it may. Looking to the income of Rs.3,000/-per month and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the annual dependency of the children would come to Rs.24,000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 54, the multiplier of 11 will have to be adopted. Adopting the multiplier of 11, the amount of compensation would be Rs.2,64,000/-. This is the minimum compensation which the appellants were entitled to for the death of their father. The amount of Rs.50,000/-was already paid to them. Hence, the balance amount comes to Rs.2,14,000/-. Hence, I answer accordingly. 7. Insofar as rate of interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, I find fault with it. The rate of interest that should have been awarded should have been at 7.5%. The amount of Rs.50,000/-was already paid to them. Hence, the balance amount comes to Rs.2,14,000/-. Hence, I answer accordingly. 7. Insofar as rate of interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, I find fault with it. The rate of interest that should have been awarded should have been at 7.5%. Hence, the said part of the Award needs modification. Hence, I make the following order. ORDER (i) F.A. No.303 of 2003 is partly allowed with proportionate costs. (ii) Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay jointly Rs.2,14,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.