JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') has been preferred against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned Tribunal') on 13.12.2000. Learned Tribunal has quantified the award at Rs. 2,20,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants while allowing interest @ 12% per annum and excluding the interest amount for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the award aforesaid, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants. It has been stated in para 2 of the memo of appeal that disallowing the interest for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is erroneous and without any just reason. Learned Tribunal itself has stated in para 24 of the award that because the claimants have caused delay from 17.09.1996 to 08.09.1996; hence, interest could have not been disallowed from an earlier date, i.e., 17.06.1996. Further, adjournments were not sought during this period by the claimants/appellants but there were other reasons also, e.g., the Presiding Officer remained on leave, work abstention by members of bar and both the parties getting the matter adjourned for compromise. When the learned Tribunal has adjourned the matter considering the reasons assigned to be sufficient and reasonable, interest for the above said period should not have been disallowed. 3. Other ground of the challenge is that one-third income has been deducted for the personal living expenses of deceased Shankar Lal while presuming his monthly income to be Rs. 2400/-. But looking to the four dependents namely, the wife and three children, only one-fifth of the income should have been deducted for the personal expenses of deceased. It has further been averred that there is a calculation mistake committed by the learned Tribunal and only Rs. 2,00,000/- have been quantified in place of Rs. 2,11,200/-. 4. Third ground of challenge is that the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meagre sum of Rs. 5000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- each for the loss of love, care and affection towards the other dependant family members of the deceased. Taking the condition of the bereaved family members into consideration that they have lost the only bread-winner for the family and have been deprived of the help, company, guidance, care and love and affection, at least a sum of Rs. 2500/- each for the loss of love, care and affection towards the other dependant family members of the deceased. Taking the condition of the bereaved family members into consideration that they have lost the only bread-winner for the family and have been deprived of the help, company, guidance, care and love and affection, at least a sum of Rs. 45,000/- should have been awarded by the learned Tribunal on this head. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants further stated that in the above circumstances, the award should have been enhanced, while allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of the matter and the conditions prevalent at the time of accident in view of the relevant and prevalent legal provisions. He has further fairly conceded that the arithmetical mistake in quantifying the award can be corrected. He has also stated that disallowance of interest amount is justified as the claimants/appellants themselves pursued their claim with negligence and slackness. He has thus prayed that the award may be upheld while disallowing the appeal. 6. In view of the rival contentions raised by both the sides, I have given thoughtful consideration to the material available on record. 7. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the claim and present appeal are that on 23.02.1996 when deceased Shankar Lal and some other persons were travelling in tempo bearing registration No. R.S.Q.-3559 from Jodhpur to Banar, a bus bearing registration No. R.J.19-0091 coming from the opposite side collided head on from the wrong side causing injuries to the passengers of the tempo. Injured Shankar Lal was taken to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital for treatment and on 28.02.1994, he succumbed to the injuries. His legal representatives preferred this claim petition. Learned Tribunal quantified a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as award against all the respondents jointly and severally along with interest @ 12% per annum thereon. Claimants assailed the same by way of this appeal. 8. His legal representatives preferred this claim petition. Learned Tribunal quantified a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as award against all the respondents jointly and severally along with interest @ 12% per annum thereon. Claimants assailed the same by way of this appeal. 8. Insofar as, the question of disallowing the interest for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is concerned, it is apparently clear on perusal of para 24 of the award passed by the learned Tribunal as also the record received therefrom that the issues were framed on 17.09.1996, thus disallowing the interest prior thereto i.e., w.e.f. 17.06.1996 was not at all warranted. There appears a typing mistake in the operative portion of the award in this regard. Further, on perusal of the order sheets contained in the record received from the Tribunal from dated 17.09.1996 to 08.09.1999, it is apparently clear that on 07.08.1997, 18.11.1997, 30.03.1998 and 15.09.1998, the concerned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. On 20.11.1997, adjournment was granted on account of the reference held for sad demise of one of the Hon'ble Judges of Rajasthan High Court. On 17.07.1999 and 28.07.1999, the matter was adjourned on the request of both sides for getting it compromised through Lok Adalat. It is thus apparent that it was not the slackness or negligence on the part of the appellants/claimants for which alone, the claim was dragged on unnecessarily for the period from 17.09.1996 to 08.09.1999, but there were other reasons also for which, the claimants cannot be held liable and penalized. 9. In view of above, the amount of interest @ 12% per annum for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is required to be awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants and is accordingly allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has claimed that the interest amount for the aforesaid period comes to be Rs. 66,300/-, which needs to be ascertained and whatever amount of interest @ 12% per annum for the period from 17.06.1996 to 08.09.1999 is calculated, the claimants/appellants will be entitled to receive the same. 11. So far as, the challenge on the ground that the personal living expenses for deceased should have been awarded at the rate of one-fifth in place of one-third is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to satisfy this Court about this limb of argument. 11. So far as, the challenge on the ground that the personal living expenses for deceased should have been awarded at the rate of one-fifth in place of one-third is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to satisfy this Court about this limb of argument. No reference has been made by him to any legal provision or precedent to support his argument. Taking the number of dependent family members of the deceased Shankar Lal as 'four', i.e., his wife and three children, deduction for personal living expenses allowed by the learned Tribunal at one third cannot be considered to be excessive. But there appears a calculation mistake in quantifying the award by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 2400/- and while deducting one-third for his personal living expenses, it comes to be Rs. 1600/- (Rs. 2400/- - Rs. 800/-). Adopting the multiplier of 11, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1600 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 2,11,200/- whereas, only Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. This calculation mistake is required to be corrected, as has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. Thus, the claimants/appellants are entitled to be awarded Rs. 11,200/- more on this count. 12. Next ground of challenge is that a meagre sum of Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- each for loss of love and affection to the three children has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The sum awarded by learned Tribunal on these heads certainly appear to be very meagre and in the form of pittance. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that at the time of death of Shankar Lal, his two daughters were unmarried being of the age of 15 and 12 years respectively. Even his eldest son Rana Ram was of 19 years of age. His widow Smt. Patasi is also said to be of 40 years of age at that point of time. It can very well be presumed that all these children have been deprived of the help, guidance and protection of their father at a tender age. The wife of the deceased has also been prevented from the society, company and sexual relations of her husband. It can very well be presumed that all these children have been deprived of the help, guidance and protection of their father at a tender age. The wife of the deceased has also been prevented from the society, company and sexual relations of her husband. All the family members were forced to encounter a very difficult situation because of untimely death of Shankar Lal in the aforesaid accident. This is beyond comprehension that how the meagre amount of Rs. 5000/- for the wife and Rs. 2500/- each for the children can be considered to be adequate to gauge their wounds. 13. In view of above, this Court is inclined to enhance the sum for loss of consortium from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 30000/- and for loss of love and affection to the children from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/- for three children. It is thus enhanced to Rs. 45,000/- in all. In para 7 of the memo of appeal, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- has been claimed on these heads by the claimants/appellants. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal preferred by the claimants/appellants deserves to be allowed and the sum of award quantified by the learned Tribunal is enhanced in above terms. 15. The claimants/appellants will be entitled to get the amount of interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced sum from the date of award to its realisation. The amount so enhanced will be paid by the respondents, jointly and severally, to the claimants/appellants within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of the judgment. 16. Costs are made easy. 17. The appeal stands allowed and disposed.