ORDER 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other appeals being M.A. 628/2002, M.A. 722/2002 and M.A. 766/2002 because all these appeals which are filed by the claimants arise out of one common award dated 21.11.2001 and secondly they also arise out of same accident. 2. This is an appeal (M.A. 642/2002) filed by the claimant against an award dated 21.11.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 68/99 by III MACT, Indore. By impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,500/- to the claimants for the death of one Anil, who died at the age of 18 in a motor accident. According to the claimants, the award of Rs. 1,64,500/- is on lower side and hence it needs to be enhanced. It is for this purpose, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. So the question involved in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement is made out and if so, to what extent ? 3. Heard Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 6. 4. It may be stated that all other findings such as manner in which the accident occurred, the issue regarding liability on the insured/insurer, the issue regarding negligent manner of driving of vehicle in question are decided in claimant's favour and hence the same are no~ under challenge in this appeal. In other words, these findings are not assailed even by the respondents either by filing cross-objection or cross appeal and hence the same need not be again gone into it in this appeal. It is for this reason, we do not wish to increase the length of this order by narrating all those facts and finding. 5. It is a death case, where Anil aged 18 years succumbed to injuries and died. It is not in dispute that the injuries suffered by Anil was in the motor Accident and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act from the insured/insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of father of deceased - Damodar (PW 9) on the question of deceased's monthly income and proceeded to apply the principle of notional income provided in schedule (Rs. 15,000/-) and accordingly determined the compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of father of deceased - Damodar (PW 9) on the question of deceased's monthly income and proceeded to apply the principle of notional income provided in schedule (Rs. 15,000/-) and accordingly determined the compensation payable to the claimants. It is on this basis, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 as provided in the schedule looking to the age of the claimant and determined the compensation of Rs. 1,64,500/payable to the claimant i.e. appellants of M.A. No. 642/2002. 6. We have perused evidence of father of deceased Damodar (PW 9). He has deposed that Anil - deceased was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month and was giving to his father for sustenance of the family. According to Damodar deceased-Anil was doing painting work on day-to-day basis and was earning Rs. 3,500/- for the sustenance of family. This evidence of Damodar was totally discarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, Tribunal took notional income of Rs. 15,000/- to be the basis for determining the compensation payable to the claimants. 7. In our opinion, there does not appear any basis for rejecting outright the evidence of Damodar. We fail to see as to why an old father who is totally depending upon his ~on for sustaining the survival of his family would speak a lie. Had it been so, father would have given exaggerated figure of the monthly income of his son. Nowadays earning of Rs. 100/- per day by any manual labourer is a fact reality. In this case, Anil was doing a job of painting and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Damodar when• he said Anil was in a position to earn a. sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month. Since he was earning on day-to-day basis, we take his monthly income to be Rs. 3,000/- in place of Rs. 3,500/-. 8. Once we hold that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-, the dependency figure works out to Rs. 2,000/-. In this view, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total compensation is worked out to Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-. This is how the claimants are held entitled to claim total sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- in place of Rs. 1,64,500/- from the respondents jointly and severally. 2,000/-. In this view, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total compensation is worked out to Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-. This is how the claimants are held entitled to claim total sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- in place of Rs. 1,64,500/- from the respondents jointly and severally. The enhanced sum awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual realisation. All other findings are accordingly upheld being not under challenge. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Impugned award dated 21.11.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 68/99 out of which this M.A. 642/2002 has arisen is modified to the extent indicated above. No cost. 10. This takes us to M.A. 628/2002. This appeal arises out of Claim Case No. 78/99 decided by III MACT, Indore by award dated 21.11.2001. By impugned award, the Tribunal awarded of sum of Rs. 1,66,602/- to the claimants for the death of one Avinash who was aged ab6ut 19 years on the date of accident. 11. As stated supra, it is also a death case arising out of the same accident referred supra in which Avinash - a young boy died untimely. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of father of deceased - Ganpat (PW 1) on the question of deceased's monthly income and thus applied the principle of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- to be the basis for determining the compensation payable to the claimants. Accordingly Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 as provided in the schedule and worked out the compensation at Rs. 1,66,602/- in addition to grant of some other miscellaneous expenses payable to the claimant i.e. appellants of M.A. 642/2002. 12. We have perused the evidence of father of deceased i.e. Ganpat (PW 1). He has deposed that his son Avinash i.e. deceased was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- in one workshop called Narmada Body Builder. In support of this statement, the claimant also filed one salary certificate issued by Narmada Body Builder (Ex. P-21) duly signed by the partner of the concern Ramkishan (PW 13). It is not in dispute that this certificate was signed by Ramkishan. 4,000/- in one workshop called Narmada Body Builder. In support of this statement, the claimant also filed one salary certificate issued by Narmada Body Builder (Ex. P-21) duly signed by the partner of the concern Ramkishan (PW 13). It is not in dispute that this certificate was signed by Ramkishan. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence on the ground as one can' see from para 34 of the impugned award, observing that since the certificate (Ex. P-21) was written by Ganpat i.e. father of deceased and signed by Ramkishan and hence it is not reliable. The Tribunal as stated supra, proceeded to take Rs. 15,000/- as a notional income as per schedule and applying the multiplier of 16 determined the compensation of Rs, 1,66,602/- payable to the claimants. 13. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not apparently right in discarding the evidence of Ganpat (PW 1), i.e., father of deceased. In our view, what more evidence the claimant could have tendered than what was tendered by him in support of their statement. In first place, claimants through father of deceased (PW 1) proved that Avinash was in the employment of one concern called Narmada Body Builder. In the second place, he filed certificate of salary (Ex. P-21). Thirdly, he got the same proved by the partner of the concern (PW 13). What was there to discard this evidence and what more was lacking in this evidence. It was much more so when there was nothing in rebuttal led by the non-applicants to discard this evidence. 14. We thus do not subscribe to the reasoning of Tribunal when they proceeded to reject the salary certificate (Ex. P-21). Careful perusal of statement of PW 13 would show that Ganpat i.e. father of deceased came to him with certificate and requested him to sign which admittedly after perusing the certificate, Ramkishan signed. In such case what is material in such circumstances is what is mentioned in the certificate? and whether it is signed by the proper person? Admittedly the certificate is issued on the letter head of Narmada Body Builder and it is duly , signed by the owner of the said concern. This necessarily follows that Ramkishan admitted the genuineness of the certificate and contents of the certificate. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal should have accepted the genuineness of the certificate for granting benefit to the claimants. 15. This necessarily follows that Ramkishan admitted the genuineness of the certificate and contents of the certificate. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal should have accepted the genuineness of the certificate for granting benefit to the claimants. 15. Once we uphold the genuineness of the certificate, i.e., Ex. P-21 which mentions the monthly salary of deceased Avinash at Rs. 4,000/-, after deducting 1/3rd what we get is around Rs. 2,600/- for working out the dependency figure. So Rs. 2,600 x 12 = Rs. 31,200/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, we get Rs. 31,200 x 16 = Rs. 4,99,200/-. This is how the claimant is held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,99,200/in place of Rs. 1,66,602/-. The enhanced sum shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 16. In view of aforesaid discussion this appeal i.e. M.A. No. 628/2002 which arises out of Claim Case No. 78/99 decided by III MACT, Indore by award dated 21.11.2001 succeeds in part and is thus allowed in part. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. The impugned award is accordingly modified as indicated supra. No cost. 17. This takes us to M.A. No. 728/2002. This appeal arises out of Claim Case No. 69/99 decided by III MACT, Indore dated 21.11.2001. By impugned award, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,500/- to the claimants for the death of one Trilok who was aged 20 years at the time of accident. This appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimants. 18. It is a death case where Trilok aged about 20 years succumbed to injuries and died. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of deceased's father - Lalaram (PW 4) on the question of deceased's monthly earning and hence applied the notional income of Rs. 15,000/to be the basis for determining the compensation payable to the claimants. It is on this basis, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 as per schedule and determined the compensation of Rs. 1,64,500/- payable to the claimants. 19. We have perused evidence of father Lalaram (PW 4) on the question of deceased's monthly income, he has deposed on oath that his son Trilok @ Bala was aged about 18 years and was working in photocopy shop called Liberty India on a monthly salary of Rs. 2100/-. He also filed a salary certificate issued by Liberty India (Ex. P-25). We have perused evidence of father Lalaram (PW 4) on the question of deceased's monthly income, he has deposed on oath that his son Trilok @ Bala was aged about 18 years and was working in photocopy shop called Liberty India on a monthly salary of Rs. 2100/-. He also filed a salary certificate issued by Liberty India (Ex. P-25). In this certificate it is mentioned that Trilok was working in that shop on a monthly salary of Rs. 2100/-. It is duly signed by one Shyambabu. It is also proved by Lalaram (PW 4). The Tribunal rejected the certificate saying that Shyambabu was not examined and hence no reliance 'can be placed upon. It is on this basis as stated supra the Tribunal proceeded to take notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as the basis and determined the compensation by applying the multiplier of 16. In all thus a sum of Rs. 1,64,500/- after adding some other miscellaneous expenses was awarded to the claimants. 20. We find no justifiable reason to uphold the view taken by the Tribunal, when it did not accept the salary certificate (Ex. P-25). In our opinion the same, i.e., Ex. P-25 should have been accepted to be the genuine one. In fact, why should the father of deceased speak a lie? He said so in his evidence. He then filed the certificate. Merely because the employer was not examined would not be a good ground to reject the genuineness of the certificate. We find on its perusal that it does not contain any unnatural or unreliable statement. On the other hand, it clearly refers that deceased Trilok was in the employment of Liberty India on monthly salary of Rs. 2,100/-. There was, therefore, absolutely no basis for not accepting this certificate. It was much morel so when the non-applicants failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal. We, therefore, reverse the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue and hold that Trilok @ Bala was earning Rs. 2,100/- per month. 21. So taking Rs. 2,100/- to be his income and after deducting 1I3rd, we get sum of Rs. 1400/- as his monthly income. The yearly income comes to Rs. 1400/- x 12 i.e. Rs. 16,800/-. This is how we get a figure of compensation Rs. 16,800/- x 16 i.e. Rs. 2,68,800/-. Accordingly the total award is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,800/- in place of Rs. 1,64,500/-. 1400/- as his monthly income. The yearly income comes to Rs. 1400/- x 12 i.e. Rs. 16,800/-. This is how we get a figure of compensation Rs. 16,800/- x 16 i.e. Rs. 2,68,800/-. Accordingly the total award is enhanced to Rs. 2,68,800/- in place of Rs. 1,64,500/-. The enhanced sum to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion the appeal i.e. M.A. 722/2002 succeeds and is allowed in part. As a consequence impugned award dated 21.11.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 69/99 by III MACT, Indore is modified to the extent indicated above. 23. This takes us to M.A. 766/2002. This appeal arises out of Claim Case No. 79/99 decided on 21.11.2001 by III MACT, Indore. By impugned award the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,66,965/- for the injuries sustained by claimant in an accident. He is not satisfied with what is awarded and hence he is in appeal for enhancement. So the question involved in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement is made out ? 24. Having perused the record of the case and having heard learned counsel for the appellant and in particular the finding of Tribunal contained in para 53 to 55 of impugned order, we do not find any good ground to enhance the compensation as in our opinion taking into account, the nature of injuries sustained, extent of disability (64%) in the leg and the expenses incurred a sum of Rs. 1,66,965/appears to be quite reasonable and legal. It is just and proper calling for no further enhancement. In injury case, there cannot be a fixed compensation and hence one has to determine the just compensation on the basis of several material facts brought on record. Since in this case the Tribunal was quite conscious of all these material factors which are. usually taken into account, we concur with this finding and uphold it. Since we are in agreement with the finding in it's entirety and hence we do not wish to again go into appreciation of facts and evidence. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, M.A. 766/2002 which arises out of Claim Case No. 79/99 decided by III MACT, Indore has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.