Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota vide award dated 211.2000 in Claim Petition No. 2179/1998. 2. Claimants are wife and three children of deceased Shambu Singh, who died on 17.05.1998 as a result of accident which took place while he was going on foot on his side at about 07.45 P.M. on 10.11.1997 was hit by offending scooter No. RSO 5783, being driven rashly and negligently with a high speed by Respondent No. 1. on account of which, he sustained multiple injuries and he remained in hospital from 10.11.1997 till his death. 3. Claimants produced Ration Card (Exhibit-88) which was prepared on 28.09.1996 in which age of deceased was shown to be 40 years. Deceased was employed with a contractor with whom, he was working as Supervisor drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-as is evident from salary certificate (Exhibit-77) issued by the contractor. Manju Devi (AW.1) appeared in witness box and produced certificate of contractor mentioning 37 years age of deceased. 4. For the accident, ibid, First information report was also lodged on 10.11.1997 by Ram Udit Singh (AW. 2) Head Constable of Police, who has mentioned age of deceased as 48 years and accordingly in subsequent documents prepared by police, during investigation, 48 years age of deceased was recorded everywhere. 5. The Tribunal, after taking note of 48 years age of deceased and further considering relevant material on record, assessed his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, determined Rs. 2,000/-as monthly economic dependency of the family; and after adopting multiplier of 10, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/-including Rs. 15,000/-as consortium to claimant wife, and Rs. 10,000/-each to children of the deceased for loss of love and affection, and Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses, with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of claim petition till actual payment, vide impugned award. Hence, this appeal. 6. 2,88,000/-including Rs. 15,000/-as consortium to claimant wife, and Rs. 10,000/-each to children of the deceased for loss of love and affection, and Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses, with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of claim petition till actual payment, vide impugned award. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri Sangram Singh, Counsel for appellants contended that Ration Card (Exhibit-88) was prepared much before the date of accident and it refers 40 years age of deceased, which ordinarily was required to be accepted and merely because at subsequent stage when the FIR was lodged, 48 years age of deceased was rerecorded by the Head Constable of is own and the same was repeated in all subsequent documents prepared during investigation, that in no manner can be considered to determine the actual age of deceased. 7. The Counsel further urged that income of deceased has not been properly assessed and keeping in view his age of 40 years, future prospects have also not been looked into by the Tribunal, which requires reconsideration by this Court. 8. Contrarily, Shri Ram Singh Rathore, Counsel for respondents has supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal and urged that over-all compensation awarded is just and reasonable, which does not require interference by this Court. 9. I have considered respective contentions advanced by Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. 10. As regards income of the deceased, there was no concrete document except statement of Manjudevi (AW. 1), who has produced salary slip (Exhibit-77), which does not contain either any dispatch number or even date or the basis on which it was recorded to justify its contents about income of deceased while allegedly holding post of Supervisor and even the author of salary slip (Exhibit-77) was produced in witness box, who according to the Tribunal, failed to support the case of claimant about payment made by him towards monthly salary of the deceased. In this view of evidence led on record, and taking into consideration other material and also the daily wages rates prevalent at relevant time under different Circulars of State Government, the Tribunal considered Rs. 3,000/-as monthly income of deceased and after 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses and determined Rs. 24,000/-as annual dependency of the family, in which I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference by this Court. 3,000/-as monthly income of deceased and after 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses and determined Rs. 24,000/-as annual dependency of the family, in which I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference by this Court. Similarly, in view of conclusions, supra, and that apart, it has not come on record as to what kind and nature of work in which the deceased was engaged or was having any technical knowledge so as to earn his better future prospects - in the absence of which, in my considered opinion, no interference is required on this aspect of future prospects in the impugned award. 11. As regards compensation towards love, affection and consortium, the same has adequately been awarded which does not require any interference. 12. So far as age of deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the material which has been collected on the basis of FIR, which described 48 years age of deceased and merely on this basis, the Tribunal has considered 48 years. Contrarily, in view of 40 years age as described in the Ration Card (Exhibit-88) prepared much before the date of accident, which cannot ordinarily be disbelieved as nothing contrarily has been placed on record in rebuttal by either side, which has wrongly been discarded by the Tribunal, however, looking to the age of dependents of the deceased, I consider age of deceased in between 40-45 years and in this view of matter, claimants are entitled for multiplier of 15 as per 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of record in determining 48 years age of deceased and applying multiplier of 10, which requires interference by this Court. As a result of above discussion, claimants are entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/-(Rs. 2000x12x15) towards financial dependency of the family. 13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-(Rs. 4,08,000/-minus Rs. 2,88,000/-awarded by Tribunal), which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within two months. 14. 1,20,000/-(Rs. 4,08,000/-minus Rs. 2,88,000/-awarded by Tribunal), which shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within two months. 14. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in Monthly Income Scheme of Post Office for a term of six years in name of claimant-wife, who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on Post Office MIS account supra as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. 15. To the above extent, impugned award stands modified. No order as to costs.