Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24/4/1996 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No.149/1991. 2. On 7/6/1991 the deceased was travelling in his matador on highway No.6. The Truck bearing Registration No.WB-03/0870 coming from opposite direction dashed against the matador. The deceased sustained injuries and died. He left behind him a widow, three minor children and parents who are original claimants 1 to 6. Alleging that because of rash and negligent driving of the truck accident occurred, the claimants filed claim petition praying for compensation of Rs.15,000,00/. 3. The driver and owner of the offending truck did not put their appearance hence they were proceeded ex parte. 4. The original respondent no.3 insurance company filed the written statement and denied the claim. It is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. It was their case that the deceased was driving the matador and was carrying passengers unauthorizedly and because of his negligent driving, accident occurred. The age and income of the deceased were also disputed. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. After considering the evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing Registration No.WB-03/0870. On the point of loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal held that there was loss of dependency to the extent of Rs.4,000/-per month and had applied multiplier of 7 and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,46,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by inadequate quantum of compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 6. Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the learned Tribunal ignored the clinching evidence on the point of income of the deceased and thus committed an error in granting meager compensation of Rs.3,46,000/-. According to him, the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal is also inconsistent with the principles settled by various High Courts and the Apex Court in this regard. 7. Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 -insurance company, contended that the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding after meticulously considering the evidence brought on the record. According to him, there is no evidence about the income of the deceased except oral testimony of the interested witnesses. 7. Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 -insurance company, contended that the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding after meticulously considering the evidence brought on the record. According to him, there is no evidence about the income of the deceased except oral testimony of the interested witnesses. For that reason, the quantum of compensation fixed by the learned Tribunal is not liable to be enhanced. 8. Ramratan Heda (P.W.2) and Kailash Sable (P.W.4) are the witnesses on the point of incident. Same is not under dispute. Dr. Ashok More (P.W.3) deposed about the receipt of the dead body in the Irwin Hospital and the conduction of autopsy over the same. Gangabai Dahad (P.W.1) -widow of the deceased gave details of the business which was being carried bout by the deceased, however, the evidence that how much amount the deceased was contributing towards family expenses is conspicuously missing from her evidence. Her evidence that he was earning Rs.1,20,000/-per year is just a guess work. 9. Mr. Mohta, the learned counsel for the appellants, invited attention of this Court to Exhs.37 and 38. These are the paper sheets and cannot be said to be accounts maintained in due course of business and therefore, cannot be relied upon. The learned Tribunal has also observed and rightly so that: "There is also reference in xerox copy of the account books which are at Ex.37 and 38. But in the said account book, it is seen that maximum amount has been shown towards Ghasara. Ghasara indicates towards depreciation price of the machinery and articles. It is not actual loss. So it can be said from the account books and the statement of claimant that there was sufficient income to the deceased from his business which he was also running" 10. Thus on the basis of the evidence brought on the record, the learned Tribunal held that the loss to the family was Rs.4,000/-per month. In fact, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount towards the personal expenses. 11. Thus on the basis of the evidence brought on the record, the learned Tribunal held that the loss to the family was Rs.4,000/-per month. In fact, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount towards the personal expenses. 11. The broad factors on the basis of which the income of the deceased can be assessed, according to me, are thus; "(i) He had cleared matriculation examination (11th standard old course) in the year 1972; (ii) the matador which met with an accident was owned by him; (iii) he was conducting a business in the name and style "Vikas Food Products" for which he had obtained the license from the concerned department." 12. Having considered the totality of the evidence brought on the record, the annual income of the deceased cannot be less than Rs.40,000/-to Rs.48,000/-. Even going on lower side, the loss of dependency per month would be Rs.2,500/-i.e. Rs.30,000/-per year. 13. As regards multiplier, the learned Tribunal was totally wrong in applying 7 as multiplier. For that, the learned Tribunal assigned the following reasons : "Claimant no.2 is son of the deceased whose age is shown as 11 years. It means certainly there is loss to the family for at least 7 years. So, the pecuniary loss to P.A. to the family comes to Rs.48,000/-, and this loss will continue till Applicant no.2 attains the majority. So a multiplier of 7 will serve the purpose." 14. There is catena of authorities that the multiplier has to be chosen on the basis of age of the deceased. As per the Second Schedule, the proper multiplier for the age group of 35 to 36 is 16. In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. In that view of the matter, the proper multiplier would be 16. Thus the loss of dependency would be Rs.30,000/-x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/-. The compensation payable under other heads would be loss of consortium Rs.17,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.3,000/-, loss of estate Rs.10,000/-and loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-. Thus the total amount of compensation would be Rs.5,20,000/-. In that view of the matter the following shall be the fair and just compensation : 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,46,000/-inclusive of "no fault liability". The compensation payable under other heads would be loss of consortium Rs.17,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.3,000/-, loss of estate Rs.10,000/-and loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/-. Thus the total amount of compensation would be Rs.5,20,000/-. In that view of the matter the following shall be the fair and just compensation : 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,46,000/-inclusive of "no fault liability". Now the claimants would be entitled to recover the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,20,000/-Rs.3,46,000/-= Rs.2,74,000/-with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. 16. Appeal is allowed partly with proportionate costs. 17. The claimants would be entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.2,74,000/-with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the realization. This amount would be in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal. 18. On deposit of this enhanced amount of compensation, it should be disbursed in the following manner : Appellant no.1 be paid Rs.50,000/-by way of a crossed cheque drawn in her favour. The rest of the amount be invested in her name in any nationalized bank, which shall be convenient to her, at Jalgaon for a period of five years and she shall be entitled to receive the interest, monthly or quarterly, accrued thereon. On expiry of five years, she shall be entitled to encash the F.D. without reference to the Court.