BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad dated 1. 2. 1997 in Claim Case No. 19 of 1990. Claimant is father of deceased Anil Kumar pacholi. Compensation of Rs. 15,000 has been awarded against which present appeal has been filed. ( 2 ) ANIL Kumar Pacholi (deceased) was employed as a Supervisor in Hotel Mayur, bhopal and he was earning Rs, 550 per month. On the evening of 27. 10. 1988, he was going from Itarsi to Hoshangabad on his moped bearing registration No. CIB 5789 to meet his uncle, when jeep bearing registration No. MBB 7162, driven rashly and negligently by Mahendra Singh coming from opposite direction, dashed against the vehicle of deceased. As a result of this accident, deceased sustained injuries on head, chest, right hand, palm, nose, wrist and left heel. After falling from vehicle and sustaining these injuries, he became unconscious and was shifted to hospital at itarsi. He gave statement to the police on the same day and F. I. R. was registered. In this statement, he describes that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. It came from opposite side and hit his moped resulting in injuries. ( 3 ) AFTER death of deceased in the accident, claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 11,28,000. Insurance company has been made party to the case apart from owner and driver of the jeep. Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was drunk at the time of accident. He was responsible for the accident. The Claims tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards 'no fault liability'. Claimant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Rajesh Meindiratta, the learned counsel for appellant, submits that Claims tribunal has not appreciated the evidence correctly. There is misreading of evidence resulting in wrong finding with regard to responsibility for taking place of accident. Learned counsel submits that deceased was not responsible for the accident. It was the jeep driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently coming from opposite side, hit the vehicle of deceased resulting in injuries to him and death. It is also submitted by learned counsel that Rajesh was neither friend of the deceased nor was he given lift by the deceased. It was the jeep driver who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently coming from opposite side, hit the vehicle of deceased resulting in injuries to him and death. It is also submitted by learned counsel that Rajesh was neither friend of the deceased nor was he given lift by the deceased. There is no evidence suggesting that the deceased was so drunk that he was unable to drive the vehicle properly and the finding of Claims tribunal on this aspect is thoroughly whimsical and against the evidence recorded in the case. ( 5 ) WITH a view to know whether the deceased was drunk and responsible for the accident, evidence of witnesses recorded in the case has been perused. Rajesh, NW 1, states that on his request, deceased gave him lift. He found smell of liquor either from the vehicle or the deceased. This witness does not categorically say that the deceased had taken the liquor. The statement of this witness is such which does not deserve consideration for deciding this case. Therefore, the only witness left on this question is Dr. Ziauddin, NW 5. But his statement is bereft of dependability. He has said that the deceased was smelling liquor but does not say how much intoxicated. Tofiq, NW 4, states that offending vehicle was coming from opposite direction and hit moped of the deceased. All this evidence with regard to taking of liquor by deceased is not dependable and is liable to be rejected. However, assuming that the deceased had taken liquor to some extent but the way the accident has taken place leaves no iota of doubt that deceased was not responsible for the accident. Rather, the accident was caused by jeep driver who came from opposite side and hit the moped of the deceased. Therefore, finding recorded by Claims Tribunal on this question is set aside. Having come to this conclusion, we proceed to determine compensation in this case. ( 6 ) DECEASED was 23 years old at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 550 per month from Hotel Mayur, Bhopal. He had every chance of earning more income in future on promotions. In any case, when minimum income of non-earning person is taken to be Rs. 15,000 annually, there is no reason to assess the compensation in such a way that earning member does not get compensation equal to non-earning person. 550 per month from Hotel Mayur, Bhopal. He had every chance of earning more income in future on promotions. In any case, when minimum income of non-earning person is taken to be Rs. 15,000 annually, there is no reason to assess the compensation in such a way that earning member does not get compensation equal to non-earning person. In this exercise, we take the income of deceased at Rs. 15,000 per annum. After deducting '/3rd for his personal expenditure, dependency comes to Rs. 10,000 per annum. After applying multiplier of 17, compensation comes to Rs. 1,70,000. That apart, the claimant shall also be entitled to rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 1,84,500 just compensation awardable in this case is, therefore, Rs. 1,84,500 (rupees one lakh eighty-four thousand five hundred only)enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Costs on parties. Appeal partly allowed. .