BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 630 of 1999 dated 27. 4. 2000. ( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 15. 10. 1999 when the truck No. MP 09-KB 5298 driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 1 hit the deceased, who was cleaner of the truck and was guiding it. As a result of this accident the deceased, who was 20 years old, died. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased. Compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 is claimed. Defence taken by the respondent is that the accident did not take place in the manner alleged. Therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed. It is also alleged that the driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Claims Tribunal has found that the accident took place in the manner alleged by the claimants in which deceased died due to injuries suffered by him. Fact that the driver did not possess the valid driving licence has not been proved by the insurance company. As a result, compensation of Rs. 1,54,500 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application till payment has been awarded besides rs. 500 as costs of litigation. The claimants are not satisfied with this award, hence this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. Chawla, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in this case. Proper multiplier has not been utilised so the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly. To bring home the point the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was cleaner in the truck, he was receiving Rs. 1,000 by way of allowance and Rs. 2,500 by way of salary, total amount Rs. 3,500 per month. This fact is supported by salary statement issued by the employer available on the record. ( 4 ) MR. S. S. Swami, learned counsel for the insurance company, submits that salary claimed by the claimants is exaggerated. There is no satisfactory documentary proof to support the claim. We are unable to accept this submission. In such like cases it is very difficult to have the kind of proof as submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company. S. S. Swami, learned counsel for the insurance company, submits that salary claimed by the claimants is exaggerated. There is no satisfactory documentary proof to support the claim. We are unable to accept this submission. In such like cases it is very difficult to have the kind of proof as submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company. The evidence available is that of claimants and the owner of vehicle who pays salary to the deceased. Therefore, such evidence can be taken into consideration for settling the amount which can form the basis of the income of the deceased. ( 5 ) IN the circumstance, it would be just and proper to fix monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 2,500 and annual Rs. 30,000. After deducting 1/3rd as expenses on himself, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 20,000. Proper multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in General manager, Kerala State Road Transport corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), is 16, so the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,20,000. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of life expectancy, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking total to Rs. 3,34,500. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. After adjusting the amount already paid, balance amount be paid within two months from the date of receipt of certificate copy of judgment. Appeal allowed. .