2 Present : Shri Anand Shukla, counsel forthe appeHants. Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.6. (12m OR Aplr3iE§o1m The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants‘ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.1 1 .2001, passed in Claim Case No.91/2001. 2) As against the compensation of 13,30,000l— claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and son of deceased Omprakash by tiling a claim/petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 25.10.97; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.58,000l- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Omprakash died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.10.1997; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the trucks bearing registration No.MIR 9194 and MWN 3230; as the above offending vehicles trucks on the date of the accident were insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and \ / Oriental Insurance Company Limited respectively, both the Insurance Companies were liable to pay 50% each of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the claimants‘ dependency at Rs.10,000/- per annum by deducting 1/3“ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/—. By awarding further sum of Rs.8,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.58,00D/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Omprakash in the motor accident. The Oriental insurance company Limited and the National insurance Company Limited were directed to pay 50% each of Rs.58,000/- to the claimants. 5) Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants r/submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 5 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.58,000l- only. 6) Shri Varunendra Mishra and Shri Anand Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 The Oriental insurance Company Limited and respondent No.6 The National insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish any income of the / 7/ x K/x Cm iiit'li.i*fl‘*\" 4 QS deceased, the compensation of Rs.58,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal does not can for any enhancement in this appeaL 7) Deceased Omprakash was a retired Government Servant. Though the claimants pieaded that he was earning Rs.7,000/— per month as suppiier of building material, no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal in support his income to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any intirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on the basis of Notional Income prescribed in the Second schedule under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act at Rs;15,000/- per annum. 8) The claimants‘ dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000l- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3“” of the income of the deceased towards his persona! eXpenSeS. 9) Multiplier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is’certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration. 10) The claimants pleaded that deceased Omprakash was aged about 60 years on the date of the accident. _in the postmortem report, his age was shown to be 61 years. His widow, claimant No.1 Smt Manju Arora was shown to be 51 years of age in the claim petition. Considering the age of the deceased and his widow, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 8 would be appropriate in the present case; / (.r’” / > \ 11) By‘multip‘ying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the muitiplier of 8, the compensation works out to Rs.80,DOOI-. The claimants are further entitied to receive Rs.10,000l— towards funera! expenses; !oss of estate; and loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.90,000l— as compensation for the. death of deceased Omprakash in the motor accident. 12) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a View to avord any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself. 13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be biamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.32,000I- at Rs.4.000/-. 14) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.58,000I- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.4,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.32,000I-. (/41 ‘ 16) No order as to costs‘ r subbu Sdl- Chief Justice Sdk Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge