A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is appellants-claimants' appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 2. 1. 2002 passed by Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim case No. 124 of 2001. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 25. 1. 2001 at about 4 p. m. the deceased deepak, aged about 20 years, who was the son of the claimants and was working as a barber, going to Jaora from Mandsaur in a loading autorickshaw. The said autorickshaw came on the dhaba of Dilipsingh and was stopped for a while. At the same time one truck bearing registration No. HR 38-D 4243, owned by respondent No. 2 and which was being driven by respondent No. 1, came from Jaora side rashly and hit the autorickshaw which was standing. The said truck was insured with respondent No. 3. On account of this accident, the loading autorickshaw turned turtle and deceased deepak who was sitting in the autorickshaw died on the spot. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Jaora, where his post-mortem was performed. Exh. P-5 is the report of post-mortem. The matter was also reported to the Police Station, jaora. Thereafter, the claimants who are the father and mother of the deceased, have filed claim petition in which notices were directed to be issued. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner, remained ex parte. The claim was contested by the respondent No. 3 insurance company who denied the claim and submitted that the compensation should be recovered from the owner of the loading autorickshaw under Workmen's Compensation Act and also objected that the vehicle was not insured with the respondent insurance company and driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, he committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The tribunal after recording evidence of the parties recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Jaiveersingh and it was also found proved that on account of the said accident deceased died on the spot. The insurance company has not produced any evidence nor has produced the copy of the insurance policy to prove that the vehicle was not insured with the respondent insurance company. The insurance company has not produced any evidence nor has produced the copy of the insurance policy to prove that the vehicle was not insured with the respondent insurance company. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the driver of the truck has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In fact it was the burden on respondent insurance company to prove that the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the insurance company, in a third party claim case a presumption can be drawn that vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company. The Tribunal found that the deceased was earning rs. 50 per day and Rs. 1,500 per month and assessed the dependency at Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 12,000 yearly and applied the multiplier of 12 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,000 and also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,46,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 2. 2. 2001, against which the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. J. B. Dave, the learned counsel for appellants; Mr. P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the deceased was aged about 20 years and he was unmarried and as per the evidence of PW 2 Tulsiram, father of the deceased, he was working as barber at New Bombay Hair Cutting Shop and was earning Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 per day. Additionally, he was also working as coolie on a Tempo and was additionally earning Rs. 50 per day. Admittedly, the deceased was only son of the claimants. PW 2 Tulsiram has stated that he himself has undergone the family planning operation (vasectomy) and he is a patient of asthma. The claimants have also examined pw 3 Naresh Kumar who is the owner of New Bombay Hair Cutting Shop. He has stated that the deceased was working in his shop and was getting around Rs. 100 to Rs. PW 2 Tulsiram has stated that he himself has undergone the family planning operation (vasectomy) and he is a patient of asthma. The claimants have also examined pw 3 Naresh Kumar who is the owner of New Bombay Hair Cutting Shop. He has stated that the deceased was working in his shop and was getting around Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 per day, though he has admitted that he is not having any licence of his shop and the shop is small having only two chairs. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid evidence and in the absence of documentary evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 50 per day and Rs. 1,500 per month. As per Second Schedule appended to section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the ratio of notional income of Rs. 15,000 per year is applicable to non-earning person, but in this case the same cannot be made applicable because the deceased was an earning member and there is clear evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 on record that he was working as barber and there is also no rebuttal of the same on record. Therefore, it is to be held that deceased was earning rs. 100 per day and if 25 working days in a month are taken into consideration, he was earning Rs. 2,500 per month and yearly income would come to Rs. 30,000 and if one-third amount is deducted towards personal expenses, amount of dependency would come to Rs. 20,000 yearly, instead of Rs. 12,000. In this case looking to the age of parents, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12. As per Second Schedule appended to section 163-A, in case of age of the deceased between 20 and 25 years, multiplier of 17 is applicable, but looking to the ageof parents which is 40 and 42 years, the same multiplier cannot be applied. It is also true that in such cases lower multiplier of 12 is also not the proper multiplier. In a case where the parents are young between the age group 40 and 42 years multiplier of 15 for the death of a young son aged about 20 years may be the proper multiplier. It is also true that in such cases lower multiplier of 12 is also not the proper multiplier. In a case where the parents are young between the age group 40 and 42 years multiplier of 15 for the death of a young son aged about 20 years may be the proper multiplier. It is also true that this multiplier system is being used as a guide but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it may vary and differ from case to case. In this case while considering the multiplier of 15 it is also considered that the deceased was the only son of his parents and appellant No. 1, father of the deceased, is a patient of asthma and was already operated for his family planning operation (vasectomy ). Thus, looking to all the facts and features and under the circumstances of the case, multiplier of 12 is not just and proper multiplier instead multiplier of 15 would be just and proper. Therefore, in this case the amount of dependency is assessed at Rs. 20,000 per year and multiplier is also enhanced from 12 to 15 and on its application the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 3,00,000. The appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses and also a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards loss to estate. Thus, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,45,000 towards total compensation. They are also entitled for interest on the aforesaid amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 2. 2. 2001. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has rightly rejected the objection of the respondent insurance company that the insurance company of the loading autorickshaw in which the deceased was sitting is not a necessary party and has also rightly rejected this objection that Jaiveersingh, driver of the truck, has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as the insurance company has not led any evidence that Jaiveersingh, driver of the truck, was not having any valid and effective driving licence. On the contrary, Jaiveersingh's driving licence was seized by the police as per seizure-memo, Exh. P-7. On the contrary, Jaiveersingh's driving licence was seized by the police as per seizure-memo, Exh. P-7. Therefore, the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and has rightly answered this issue against the respondent insurance company. The Claims Tribunal has found that it is also not a case of any contributory negligence as the autorickshaw was standing on the dhaba where it was dashed. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed as indicated above and amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,46,000 to rs. 3,45,000. Fifty per cent of this amount be paid to the parents of the deceased and rest fifty per cent be deposited in F. D. Rs. in a nationalised bank for a period of five years and quarterly interest thereof be made payable to the parents for their maintenance. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Memo of costs be prepared. Record be returned. Appeal allowed. .