JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against the award dated 27.2.2002 by which the M.A.C.T., Udaipur allowed the claim petition of the claimants filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988. The only short question involved in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal has committed illegality in applying multiplier of 13 only in a case where the deceased was of the age of 45 years. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this court that as per the Schedule framed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988, he multiplier of 15 is available in case the victim is of the age of 40 years but not exceeding 45 years. In this case, the Tribunal committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 13 only. it is also pointed out that multiplier of 13 applies to the cases where the victim is of the age of above 45 years. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this legal position and rightly did not dispute it because the Schedule very clearly provides that multiplier of 15 is required to be adopted in case where the victim is of the age of above 40 years but not exceeding 45 years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to submit that the deceased completed 45 years, therefore, the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier of 13. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to submit that in marginal cases where the age is on the fence, then it is for the claimants to prove the exact date of birth to get the full benefit of the Schedule. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be wrong firstly because the Tribunal has categorically recorded the finding that the deceased was of the age of 45 years. The Tribunal took help of the postmortem report to held so. Secondly, in claim petition, the claimants stated in pare No. that the deceased was of the age of 43 years. They also gave date of birth as 15.8.1952. In reply, none of the respondents specifically denied this fact. The denial is only vague and the respondents stated that the fact stated in pare No. 3 of claim petition is not admitted. They also gave date of birth as 15.8.1952. In reply, none of the respondents specifically denied this fact. The denial is only vague and the respondents stated that the fact stated in pare No. 3 of claim petition is not admitted. In view of the above fact, when there is no specific denial of fact and no basis has been submitted in the pleadings about the knowledge of respondents for denying the fact then there arises no question of holding otherwise than what has been held by the Tribunal with respect to the age of the deceased. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant deserves to.be allowed. The annual income of the deceased since was Rs. 40,000/- assessed by the Tribunal, it is required to be multiplied by multiplier of and as per the last column of Schedule, the loss is of Rs. 5,60,000/-. Out of Rs. 5,60,000/-, after deducting ⅓rd amount, i.e. Rs. 1,86,600/-, the total entitlement of claimants comes to Rs. 3,73,400/- under the head of loss of income only. For the rest of the award there is no dispute, therefore, the claim stands enhanced by Rs. 26,733/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 8. The appeal of the appellant is, therefore, allowed. It is held that the appellants are entitled for Rs. 3,82,900/- under the head of loss of income. Th rest of the award is maintained as it is.Appeal Allowed. *******