ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Appellants by Mrs. Archana Kher with Mr. Sameer .... advocate. Respondent No. 3 by Mr. B.K. Joshi, advocate. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 26-6-2004 passed by MACT, Indore in claim case No. 150/02 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 9% annum, the present appeal is filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants are the dependants of deceased Damodar who passed away in a motor accident. After his death a claim petition was filed by the appellants along with one Dongarbai against the respondents wherein a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel or the appellants submits that looking to the age of the deceased which was 36 years amount awarded is on lower side, it is also submitted that income of the deceased was assessed Rs. 2,000/-per month while there was a certificate of the employer to the effect that the deceased was working as Driver and getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. In view of this, the amount awarded is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that the break-up of Rs. 2,30,000/- is as under:- Rs. 2,18,400/- towards loss of income. Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 9,600/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground that Dongarbai who was one of the claimants has not been impleaded as party to this appeal. Apart from this, it was submitted that on quantum also the income has rightly been assessed and multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied for awarding a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-. It is also submitted that the deceased was driving the truck and the owner of that truck and insurance company of that truck has not been impleaded as party. 4. It is true that Dongarbai is one of the claimants who has not been impleaded as party herein. But it does not mean that only on that ground this appeal has to be rejected. 4. It is true that Dongarbai is one of the claimants who has not been impleaded as party herein. But it does not mean that only on that ground this appeal has to be rejected. If out of number of claimants, one of the claimant is satisfied by the award passed by the learned tribunal and chooses not to further challenge the award for enhancement then, the right of other claimants who has challenged will not affect in any manner on that account. 5. So far as the income is concerned, it is true that the certificate Ex.P/11 is having a reference that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The certificate has been proved by Ratilal (AW 1) who has stated that he is Manager in Life Care Pharmaceutical Distributor. From perusal of the statement of Ratilal (AW 1), it is evident that there were various documentary evidence from which it could have been proved that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/- but except the certificate Ex.P/11 which has been prepared on a Letter-Head, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/-. Ratilal (AW1) who happens to be the Manager of Life Care Pharmaceutical Distributor has given his affidavit and has also appeared before the Court for cross-examination. Certificate is dated 7-2-2004 while date of death is 31-3-2002. From perusal of the dates it is evident that the certificate has been issued after two years of the accident. No reason has been assigned for not producing the documents regarding payment of salary to the deceased of the date prior to the accident to demonstrate that the deceased was getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/- as Driver. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant's placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Lalaram v. Rajendra Singh in M.A. No. 642/2002 decided on 29-7-2004 wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that "in our opinion, the Tribunal was not apparently right in discarding the evidence of Ganpat (PW-11) i.e. Father of deceased. In our view, what more evidence, the claimant could have tendered than what was tendered by them in support of their statement. In first place, claimant through father of deceased (PW-I) proved that Avinash was in the employment of one concern called Narmada Body Builder. In our view, what more evidence, the claimant could have tendered than what was tendered by them in support of their statement. In first place, claimant through father of deceased (PW-I) 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." 7. On the strength of this judgment of Division Bench. It is submitted that neither there is any cross-examination made to Ratilal to the effect that the deceased was not getting the salary of Rs. 4,000/-, nor any evidence was produced in rebuttal. It is true that there is no evidence in rebuttal, but so far as cross-examination is concerned, from perusal of the statement, it is evident that Ratilal (AW 1) has admitted this fact that he has not filed the ledger of employees relating to payment of salary and other relevant documents which was issued by employer. In view of this the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal as income of the deceased appears to be correct. In the present circumstances of the case no advantage can be given to the appellant of the decision of the case in the matter of Lalaram (supra). 8. Coming to the next contention of the appellants that the appellants are entitled for getting the loss of income, on the basis of application of multiplier of 16 as per IInd Schedule of 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, it appears that looking to the age of the deceased the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is having force. There is no justification for applying multiplier of 13 as the age of the deceased was 36 years. In view of this appellants are entitled for loss of income by applying multiplier of 16. It also appears that amount of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection awarded as Rs. 9,600/- is on lower side. 9. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case on record, the appeal is allowed in part. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs. It also appears that amount of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection awarded as Rs. 9,600/- is on lower side. 9. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case on record, the appeal is allowed in part. The awarded amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,30,000/- to Rs. 3,10,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application. 10. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal stands disposed of.