R.K. Varma, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased Suresh Sitpure against the award dated 19.12.1983 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 117 of 1982 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 41,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:

On 29.9.1982, at about 1.30 p.m. the truck bearing registration No. MPA 5685 belonging to Respondent No. 1 who was insured in respect of the truck by the insurer-Respondent No. 3, was being driven by the driver-Respondent No. 2 along the road coming from the side of Ahilya Ashram, Indore near Bhangari Mills where it dashed against the deceased Suresh Sitpure who was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck resulting in his death on the spot. The deceased was a technical hand having undergone Specialized Managerial Training Course in Industrial Entrepreneurship conducted by Small Industries Service Institute, Indore (Exh. A/4). It also appears from Exhs. A/2 and A/3 that he had passed first and second year of diploma examination in engineering. It has also been proved that the deceased was running his own workshop and lathe machine and was thereby earning his livelihood.

3. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, has found that the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the Respondent No. 2 thereby rendering himself as well as the owner and the insurer liable to pay compensation to the Appellant-claimants. The learned Tribunal has found that the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death by accident. As regards earnings of the deceased the learned Tribunal has determined his personal earning after deducting the part of the return of the investment in lathe machine, at Rs. 500/- per month and has estimated that out of his personal earning of Rs. 500/- the deceased must have been spending Rs. 250/- per month on himself and the remaining Rs. 250/- on the dependants claimants. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has assessed annual pecuniary dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 3,000/- and using a multiplier of 12 years, has assessed compensation for loss of dependency at Rs. 36,000/- . As amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been added as consortium payable to the widow for loss of company of her husband at such a young age. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the Appellant-claimants have filed this appeal.

4. The insurance company, Respondent No. 3, has, on the other hand, filed a cross-objection whereby it has challenged the finding of rash and negligent driving of the driver, as also the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. As regards the finding of the learned Tribunal about rash and negligent driving of the truck at the time of accident, nothing has been pointed out from the evidence on record to show that finding is erroneous. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard and hold that the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver-Respondent No. 2.

6. As regards the question of compensation, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the amount of dependency of Rs. 250/- per month as assessed by the learned Tribunal is inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The deceased was a technical hand and even on the basis of his personal earnings which was stated to be Rs. 500/- to 600/- per month apart from the return of investment on lathe machine, the dependency should have been assessed at Rs. 400/- and as the deceased was only 37 years of age at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 15 years ought to have been used instead of 12 years as adopted by the learned Tribunal.

7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant-claimants deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, we assess the annual dependency at Rs. 4,800/- and adopt a multiplier of 15 years. Thus, an amount of Rs. 72,000/- shall be payable to the claimants on the score of dependency instead of Rs. 36,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The distribution of compensation between the Appellant-claimants shall be ratably enhanced in the proportion directed by the learned Tribunal. The award of Rs. 5,000/- as consortium to the widow of the deceased, as also the rate of interest at 9 per cent per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal, are hereby affirmed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3-cross-objector has stated that the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed Rs. 50,000/- as per the agreement of insurance.

8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified inasmuch as the Appellant-claimants shall be entitled to receive from the Respondents a total compensation of Rs. 77,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of Rs. 41,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the date of claim petition till realisation. The cross-objection filed by the Respondent No. 3 fails and is hereby dismissed. It may be made clear that the liability of the insurer-Respondent No. 3 shall be limited to the amount of insurance as aforesaid. The balance shall be recoverable from the other Respondents jointly and severally. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this appeal.