JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.2.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,42,000,'- in favour of appellant-claimants (for short the claimants') and against the respondents. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, he claimants have filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment and award impugned. I have also carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that deceased Balu Ram, aged 55 years, died in motor vehicle accident, which oak place on 26.10.1993. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier of 7. is Appropriate multiplier, looking to the age of deceased at the time of the accident, is 8 years purchase factor as provided in IInd Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to take into account the income that used to be earned by the deceased by undertaking part time work. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- for the treatment expenses without there being any foundation for awarding such amount. While appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal also observed that certain bills are placed on record, which are not duly signed by anyone. The list is prepared showing details of expenses, which cannot be said to be authentic for the reason that it has been prepared at one time and in single handwriting and by same pen for different periods and thus, the list is not supported by the authenticated medical bills or receipts. However, a tall claim has been made in the said list not supported by receipts. PW1 Shiv Narayan, who is an employee of Ramesh Trading Company, Bhilwara, appeared before the Tribunal and filed a copy of ledger of M/s. Ramesh Trading Company, showing withdrawals of Rs.200/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.500/- per month on various occasions, by the deceased Balu Ram. At any rate, he had never been paid Rs.2000/- per month. In the ledger, it nowhere shows that his on salary was Rs.2000/- per month. At any rate, he had never been paid Rs.2000/- per month. In the ledger, it nowhere shows that his on salary was Rs.2000/- per month. It appears that he was doing part time work and according to his work, he was getting Rs.2001-, Rs. 300/- and Rs.5001- per month. However, the last entry in the ledger shows payment of Rs.14,000/- at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. This entry is admittedly made after the death of deceased. PW1, Shiv Narayan, an employee of Ramesh Trading Company who was produced as claimant's witness, has admitted in his statement that the entires of Rs.14,000/- and Rs.6400/- have been made later on. Thus, there is no consistent evidence that the deceased was getting Rs.2000/- per month from Ramesh Trading Company. However, certain receipts have been placed on record showing the payment received by the deceased at varying rates 40 i.e. Rs.200/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.500/- per month. From this evidence, it appears that the deceased was engaged on part time basis for doing the accounts work. 5. The Tribunal after proper appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the average income of the deceased was Rs.1150/- per 45 month. The Tribunal has taken into account the receipts showing payments at varying rates i.e. Rs.200/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.500/- per month. The Tribunal also opined that the claimants have exaggerated the claim. The Tribunal determined monthly dependency at the rate of Rs.800/-. Thus, the annual dependency comes to Rs.9600/-. This amount was multiplied by 7 years 50 Purchase factor. Thus, total dependency comes to Rs. 67,200/-. In addition to his, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- for the treatment expenses and Rs.30,000/- for loss of company consortium, love and affection. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- for the pain suffered by the deceased. The Tribunal observed that various bills of expenses produced by the claimants are not signed by anyone; in some of the bills, even the name of the purchaser has not been shown. Taking into account the fact that soon after the accident, the deceased was taken to Ahmedabad for treatment and he remained under treatment for some time at Ahmedabad and therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for the treatments expenses. The compensation awarded for love and affection amounting to Rs.30,000/- also cannot be said to be on lower side. Taking into account the fact that soon after the accident, the deceased was taken to Ahmedabad for treatment and he remained under treatment for some time at Ahmedabad and therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for the treatments expenses. The compensation awarded for love and affection amounting to Rs.30,000/- also cannot be said to be on lower side. The Tribunal had taken care of the fact that the deceased remained under treatment at Ahmedabad and without proper foundation, sizable amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded. This cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. The only question which survives is as to what should be the proper 15 multiplier, In the age group of 55 to 60 years the multiplier of 8 is provided in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act. Considering the fact that deceased was a part time worker with various firms, the income determined by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. On the contrary, it appears to be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, in 20 my view, there is slight scope of variation in the multiplier. I deem it just and proper to raise the multiplier from 7 to 9 years purchase factor and accordingly, enhance the loss of income from Rs.67,200/- to Rs.86,400/-. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.1,61,400/-, rounded to Rs.1,62,000/-. 7. No other point was argued. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,62,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed as Above. *******