ORDER 1. As the question involved in both these appeals are identical and as they arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed by this common order. 2. The claimants in claim case No. 15 of 1999 and claim case No. 20 of 1999 aggrieved by the award passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Claimants in both these appeals are legal heirs of deceased, Shreekrishna Bhagel and Lallo Singh Bhagel. Shreekrishna Bhagel (M.A. No. 43212002) and Lallo Singh Bhagel (M.A.No. 434/2002) died on 27th May 1999 when they were trying to unload certain marble from truck bearing No. RRG 7031 owned by the respondent No.2, driven by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.3. It was the case of the claimants that Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh were employed as construction workers were engaged in the work of fixing marble at various work places and were earning Rs. 200/- per day and about Rs.6,000/- per month, on the date of the accident when the truck in question came along with marble, both of them boarded the truck along with two other workers who had come for unloading the material. When the unloading work was in progress, the driver of the truck started the vehicle as a result the truck moved forward and at that time the marble in the truck fell on them and they died. Because of their death, claimants filed the claim petitions wherein the Tribunal has awarded compenation after assessing the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month. This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is made only on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased have been assessed by the Tribunal wrongly, very much on the lower side and therefore, the appeals for enhancement of the compensation have been filed and prayer made is for treating the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month. 4. 4. Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals taking me through the evidence and the material available on record argued that the claimants have proved that the daily income of the deceased persons, Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh to be Rs.200/- per day each and ignoring this valuable evidence, finding recorded is that they are only mazdoor and not skilled workers employed in fixing of marble which is a perverse finding and hence enhancement of the compensation is sought for. 5. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the vehicle was not insured for coverage of such accidents and there is violation of policy conditions, Insurance Company has filed a cross objection. However, the claim for enhancement is opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the monthly income having not been proved, the Tribunal has not committed any error and no case for enhancement is made out. 6. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company by taking me through the findings recorded by the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 12 of the award submitted that the findings recorded being just, fair and reasonable, no case is made out for enhancement. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the appeals and exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability in MA No. 432 of 2002. 7. Before dealing with the question of enhancement claimed in both these appeals, the question of cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company in MA No. 432 of 2002 shall be taken up first. 8. The only objection raised in the cross-objection is that the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of the compensation as there is violation of policy conditions and the Insurance Company may be exonerated from the liability. 9. A perusal of the award indicates that objection in this regard was raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and issue No.4 was framed to the effect as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from the liability. To this question, in paragraph 19 of the award, it has been held by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has failed to prove violation of policy conditions. No evidence is led to prove the violation of the. conditions and finding the policy in question to be in order, liability has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. To this question, in paragraph 19 of the award, it has been held by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has failed to prove violation of policy conditions. No evidence is led to prove the violation of the. conditions and finding the policy in question to be in order, liability has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. The policy of insurance (exhibit D-1) indicates that apart from payment of basic premium of Rs. 2,779/- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred and seventy nine only) an aditional premium of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) has been paid for one driver and six Khalasis and passengers. That being so, I find no error in the award passed by the Tribunal rejecting the objection filed by the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Insurance Company having failed to prove violation of the policy conditions, the cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company in MA No. 432 of 2002 is without any substance and is rejected. 10. The only question involved in both the appeals is with regard to assessment of the income of the deceased, Shreekrishna Bhagel in MA No. 432 of 2002 and Lallo Singh Bhagel in MA No. 434 of 2002. 11. For proving the income of the deceased persons the witnesses examined are Sitaram (PW 1) father of deceased Lallo Singh in MA No. 434 of 2002. Chatrapal Singh (PW 2) father of the deceased, Shreekrishna in MA No. 432 of 2002. Apart from these two witnesses, three independent witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellants. They are Ramnath (PW 3) who was working with the deceased persons. Ramhans (PW 4) who is a person engaged in polishing of marbles who has seen the deceased persons working as MISTRI (skilled workers) and doing the work of fixing marbles. Mahendra Singh (PW 5) is also a co-worker working with the deceased persons and has deposed to the same effect. 12. Sitaram (PW 1) who is father of the deceased, Lallo Singh submitted that his son was working in the City Center as an employee for fixing marbles and he was earning Rs.200/- per day, so also, his son was working with the deceased, Shreekrishna. Similar is the statement of Chatrapal Singh (PW 2) who is father of the deceased, Shreekrishna. Sitaram (PW 1) who is father of the deceased, Lallo Singh submitted that his son was working in the City Center as an employee for fixing marbles and he was earning Rs.200/- per day, so also, his son was working with the deceased, Shreekrishna. Similar is the statement of Chatrapal Singh (PW 2) who is father of the deceased, Shreekrishna. Even though, statements of these witnesses to this effect was given by both these witnesses, their statements are disbelieved by the Tribunal only on the ground that the claimants have not produced evidence in support of the earnings of the deceased. Ramnath (PW 3) in his cross-examination has stated that he is working as mazdoor along with Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh. Ramnath who is working with the deceased persons has clearly stated that Lallo Singh and Shreekrishna are engaged in fixing of marble and earning Rs. 200/- per day. Ramhans (PW 4) is an independent worker who is doing the work of polishing of marble and the accident took place when the deceased persons were working at a site in the City Center, Gwalior. This witness has also stated that the deceased were engaged in fixing the marbles. He has stated that he worked with them at various sites including site at Pinto Park, Deendayal Nagar, Center Park situated at City Centre, Gwalior etc. The statement of this witness is supported by the statement of Mahendra Singh (PW 5). A complete reading of all the statements of the witnesses clearly indicate that the deceased persons, Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh were skilled workers and they were employed in various construction sites for fixing marbles. In the backdrop of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the deceased were not skilled workers but were only unskilled workers is a perverse finding. That apart, when all the five witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased were earning Rs.200/- per day each then there was no reason to disbelieve their statements and discard their testimony only on the ground that no documentary proof is produced by the claimants. When it was established that the deceased persons were employed in various construction sites, it is common ground that documentary evidence may not be available with them with regard to their working. When it was established that the deceased persons were employed in various construction sites, it is common ground that documentary evidence may not be available with them with regard to their working. Out of the five witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants, three of them are independent witnesses who have testified that the deceased persons were engaged in fixing marbles and were earning Rs.200/- per day as wages, there was no reason to disbelieve their statements. That being so, the statements of these witnesses has to be accepted and the earning of the deceased persons has to be treated to be Rs.200/- each per day, as the deceased were only daily wage employees, they were entitled to salary for 26 days per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of each of the deceased in MA No. 432 of 2002 and MA No. 434 of 2002 comes to Rs.5,200/- and after deducting one-third towards self-expenses which would come to Rs.1,733/-, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.41,604/- and by applying the multiplier of' 16', the compensation comes to Rs.6,65,664/- (Rupees six lacs sixty five thousand six hundred and sixty four only). To this, will be added a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.2,500/to the wives, towards the loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the thus compensation comes to Rs.6,75,664/- (Rupees six lacs seventy five thousand six hundred and sixty four only) in each of the appeals. 13. Accordingly, the claimants in MA No. 432 of 2002 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,75,664/- (Rupees six lacs seventy five thousand six hundred and sixty four only). The enhanced amount of compensation carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment. 14. Accordingly, the claimants in MA No. 434 of 2002 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,75,664/- (Rupees six lacs seventy five thousand six hundred and sixty four only). The enhanced amount of compensation carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment. 15. The appeals stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid enhancement without any order as to costs.