Judgment Vinod K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 2.6.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) in M. A. C. Case No.258 of 29.11.1987. 2. The appellants along with pro forma respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein filed a claim application under sec. 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of Raghubir singh, who was going on his scooter No. CH 01-C 3772. Raghubir Singh met with an accident with a truck bearing registration no. DL 1g-A 1696 near the turning of sector 24-C, Chandigarh. It was claimed that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the truck driver as he suddenly turned the truck towards wrong side without giving any signal which hit the scooter, as a result of which Raghubir Singh fell down on the road and sustained injuries and he succumbed to those injuries in hospital. The compensation to the tune of rs.15,00,000 (rupees fifteen lakh) was claimed on account of the death of Raghubir Singh. 3. Claim was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondent No.1 denied all the assertions made in the claim application and it was claimed that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased Raghubir singh. It was pleaded that Raghubir Singh was driving the scooter at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was further claimed that in an anxiety to overtake the truck, he lost his balance and fell down on the road. It was also claimed that the respondent No.2 had lifted the scooterist in an unconscious condition and shifted him to P. G. I. , Chandigarh and got him admitted there. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement taking similar stand as taken by respondent No.1 and denied all other assertions in the claim petition for want of knowledge. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Raghubir Singh? OPP (2) Whether Raghubir Singh died in a motor vehicle accident by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL 1g-A 1696? OPP (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from respondents, if so, how much and from which of them? OPP (2) Whether Raghubir Singh died in a motor vehicle accident by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL 1g-A 1696? OPP (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from respondents, if so, how much and from which of them? OPP (4) Whether the deceased himself was guilty of contributory negligence, if so, its effect? OPP (5) Relief. On issue No.1, it was held by the learned tribunal that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Raghubir singh. On issue No.2, it was held that raghubir Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. DL 1g-A 1696. On issue No.4, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased Raghubir Singh. Accordingly, the plea of negligent driving by the deceased was rejected. 5 On issue No.3, the learned Tribunal by treating the deceased to be an ordinary labourer assessed his income at Rs.1,500 per month and accordingly assessed his dependency at Rs.1,000 per month and by applying a multiplier of 16, a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,92,000 (rupees one lakh ninety-two thousand) along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants has challenged the findings recorded by the Lok Adalat on issue No.3 primarily on the ground that the evidence by way of Exh. P2 was produced on record which showed that the deceased was earlier employed as a Roller-man with Atul Fasteners Ltd. , Bhiwani and was getting a salary of Rs.3,321. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased had left the job in order to have better prospects and accordingly set up his own unit under the name and style of B. S. Fasteners, in 964, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. This part of the evidence was not controverted. However, the stand of the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month was disbelieved on account of failure to produce any documentary evidence on record in support of the said contention. This part of the evidence was not controverted. However, the stand of the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month was disbelieved on account of failure to produce any documentary evidence on record in support of the said contention. In view of the fact that no documentary or other evidence except the bare statement of wife of the deceased Kamlesh Kumari, was brought on the record, the assessment of dependency was made on the basis of guesswork. Once the documentary evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,321 per month while working with the previous employer, it cannot be said that his income would have reduced in any way when he started his own business. The deceased could have taken the risk of leaving the job only when he was sure of better prospects especially keeping in view the size of his family which was solely dependent upon him. Accordingly, I feel that in view of exh. P2 having been placed on record, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed at Rs.3,321 per month by the Lok adalat keeping in view the fact that the deceased had set up his own unit which was at initial stage and it was presumed that he would be spending more amount on him after his business having been promoted. Thus, a deduction of Rs.1,321 on account of his personal and other expenses would be justified and the dependency is assessed at Rs.2,000 per month. Keeping in view age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 would be just and fair and accordingly the compensation payable to the claimants is assessed at Rs.4,08,000 (rupees four lakh eight thousand ). In addition, thereto, the claimants would be entitled to consortium of Rs.5,000 (rupees five thousand)and funeral expenses of Rs.2,000 (rupees two thousand ). Thus the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to rs.4,15,000 (rupees four lakh and fifteen thousand ). Keeping in view the fact that appellants-claimants were satisfied with the assessment of compensation made by the Lok Adalat at Rs.4,08,000 no interest would be payable on the enhanced amount if the same is paid to the appellants within two months of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, however, if the same is not deposited within stipulated period, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum will be payable after the said date. Appeal disposed of.