Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 10th June, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No.79-G/II/2004, tilted Smt. Saroj Kumari and others vs. Sh. Manohar Lal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,85,200/-, including compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), was awarded and the owner came to be saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The Claimant has challenged the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, while the owner has filed the Cross Objections laying challenge to the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the owner with the liability. 3. I have gone through the impugned award and have perused the records. 4. The Tribunal, in paragraph 11 of the impugned award, after making reference to the evidence adduced by the claimants, has held that the deceased was an unskilled worker. After making the guess work, the Tribunal held that the deceased would have been earning Rs.1800/- per month at the time of his death. After deducting Rs.400/- towards his personal expenses, it was held that the Claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1400/- per month. Since the deceased was 32 years of age at the time death, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and thus, worked out Rs.2,35,200/- (1400 x 12 x 14) under the head loss of source of dependency. However, the Tribunal deducted Rs.50,000/- from the total amount of compensation on account of the fact that the deceased was also responsible to some extent for his own death. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,85,200/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. Though the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be inadequate and the impugned award is liable to be interfered with, however, keeping in view the facts of the case and the fact that the accident had occurred way back in the year 2004 and the claimants are running from pillar to post for compensation, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reluctantly upheld. 6. During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the award amount. 6. During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the award amount. I accordingly deem it proper to award interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till deposit. The amount on account of interest be deposited by the owner within a period of six weeks from today. 7. It appears that the Tribunal has not granted interim relief under ‘no fault liability’, was to be paid by the insurer. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is also awarded in favour of the claimants, which be deposited by the insurer, within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that the said amount shall not be recoverable from the owner/insured. 8. Coming to the Cross Objections filed by the owner, the same deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons. The vehicle involved in the accident was a Tractor and the insurance policy does disclose that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes. The deceased and other persons were traveling in the Tractor as passengers and they were going to their homes. It is not the case of the claimants that the owner had engaged the deceased as labourer and the Tractor was engaged for agricultural purposes at the relevant point of time. Viewed thus, the owner/insured has committed breach. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above, the appeal stands disposed of and the Cross Objections are dismissed.