Satish Chandra,J. Both the appeals are the cross appeals filed by the claimant-appellants as well as by the vehicle owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 5 of 2001 (Hausila Prasad and others vs. Ram Chander Yadav and another), whereby compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded against the owner of the vehicle. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2000 at about 4.00pm, the deceased Indrawati Devi wife of the claimant was going with her husband from Khalihan to his House. When they reached on the main road, a Jeep bearing number UP 42-C/5454 hit them. The driver of the Jeep was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, which resulted Smt. Indrawati succumbed to injuries. The driver of the Jeep was detained by the crowd but when the claimant returned from the Police Station after lodging necessary FIR, by that time the driver had slipped away. The Jeep was not insured. The claimant i.e. husband of deceased Indrawati, has filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal, who has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- against the owner of the vehicle, as Jeep in question was not insured. 3. Not being satisfied with the award, both the parties i.e. the claimants-appellant as well as the owner of the vehicle have filed the present appeals. 4. With this background, Sri Rajesh Pandey leaned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the amount is meager one, so the award may be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submits that there was no accident taken place by the Jeep and Jeep was falsely involved and detained by the Police. He submits that the deceased has committed suicide by jumping before a Truck and she died in the accident. The Truck driver ran away with the Truck from the scene. At the cost of repetition, he submits that the Jeep was not involved in the accident in question. So, the award may kindly be set aside. 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the deceased was going with her husband to her house and a Jeep No.UP 42C-5454 hit them. At the cost of repetition, he submits that the Jeep was not involved in the accident in question. So, the award may kindly be set aside. 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the deceased was going with her husband to her house and a Jeep No.UP 42C-5454 hit them. The Tribunal has examined the eye witnesses and on the basis of site plan, it was observed that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the Jeep driver, which resulted the accident in question. The Jeep and driver was taken into custody by the Police. The FIR was lodged without any delay. In these circumstances, we did not accept the theory / arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Jeep owner. Hence, we sustained the findings of the Tribunal that the Jeep was solely responsible for the accident in question. 7. It appears that the Jeep in question was not insured. So, the owner is liable to pay the compensation. In the instant case, the deceased Smt. Indrawati was aged about 40 years. So, the multiplier of 16 was rightly applied. 8. The only disputed point is the amount of compensation. In the instant case, no proof of income was given. So, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Laxmi Devi and others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another (2008) 12 SCC 165 , the notional income will have to be taken @Rs.3000/- per month for the dead person. Thus by considering the ratio laid down in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra), the notional income will have to be taken @Rs.3000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum. Out of it, one-third is to be deducted for living and personal expenses. Thus, it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. 9. By applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation comes to 24,000x16 = Rs.3,84,000/-. In addition Rs.9500/- has to be awarded with respect to funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,84,000+9,500= Rs.3,93,500/- and the same will have to be paid along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal. 10. In addition Rs.9500/- has to be awarded with respect to funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,84,000+9,500= Rs.3,93,500/- and the same will have to be paid along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal. 10. In view of above, we modify the impugned judgment and award dated 24.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad to the effect that the appellant-claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,93,500/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the amount/remaining amount along with interest before the concerned Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount already deposited be adjusted. The registry of this Court is also directed to send the lower court record, if any, within a period of one month to the concerned Tribunal, who is further directed to disburse the amounts, in terms of the award within a period of three months thereafter. 12. In the result, the appeal No.899 of 2006 filed by the claimant-appellant is partly allowed; and the appeal No.926 of 2006 filed by the vehicle owner is hereby dismissed. ______________