Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, the first filed by the owner of the offending truck, and the second filed by the claimants, against the Award dated 21st August, 2002, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Jind, relating to the same accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 19th september, 2000, at about 3.05 p. m. Anil kumar, aged about 27 years, who was posted as Operator in Hero Honda Industry, and whose monthly salary was Rs.14,274, along with one Ram Avtar Sharma, was going on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HR 36-C/ 6599 to Housing Board Colony, Dharuhera, after performing the duty, and when they reached just close to the liquor shop, near hero Honda Factory, one cycle came in front of the motorcycle, and Anil Kumar applied the brake. In the meantime, one tractor-trolley, bearing registration No. HRG-6460, came from the backs side, which was being driven by ram Phal, driver thereof, in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor struck against the said motorcycle, as a result whereof, both Anil kumar and Ram Avtar, fell down, on the road. The cyclist also fell down. Anil Kumar suffered head injury in this accident. Ram Avtar, pillion rider, also suffered injuries. An ambulance from Hero Honda Factory was called by Ram avtar Sharma, and Anil Kumar was taken to a hospital, at Delhi, as he had become unconscious. The driver of the truck ran away after leaving the tractor-trolley atthe spot. Anil kumar, succumbed to the injuries, suffered by him, in the accident. A report was lodged by ram Avtar, with the police, with regard to the said accident. It was further pleaded that meena, widow, aged about 20 years, Pala ram @ Ram, father, Smt. Sunheri, mother aged 45 years, Suman, sister aged 18 years and Anita, sister aged 25 years, were depending upon Anil Kumar, for their livelihood. On account of the death of Anil Kumar, they suffered a huge loss. Not only this, Anil Kumar was the only son of his parents. Accordingly, a petition under Sec.166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimants, for grant of compensation, in the sum of rs.30,00 lacs (thirty lacs only ). 3. On account of the death of Anil Kumar, they suffered a huge loss. Not only this, Anil Kumar was the only son of his parents. Accordingly, a petition under Sec.166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimants, for grant of compensation, in the sum of rs.30,00 lacs (thirty lacs only ). 3. Respondent No.1, in his written statement, stated that no cause of action accrued to the claimants against him, as he never remained the driver of tractor No. HRG-6460. He further stated that he did not know about the owner of the tractor. It was further sated by him that a false criminal case was got registered against him, and the police arrested him from his house. It was further stated by him that he was not connected with the tractor or the accident in any manner. The remaining averments, were denied, eitherbeing wrong, or for want of knowledge. 4. Respondent No.2 in his written statement stated that the tractor, in question, did not belong to him, and, as such, the petition was not maintainable. It was further stated that police registered a case, against respondent no.1, and also got verified about the ownership of the alleged offending vehicle, from the registration Authority, Rewari, and it was revealed that one Randhir Singh son of Hans raj and Raghbir Singh son of Parshadi Lai residents of Village Kapri Wass, Tehsil Rewari were the owners of the same. It was further stated thatthe name of the father of respondent no.2, was Sheotaj Singh. lt was further stated that, underthese circumstances, respondent no.2, was not connected with the tractor, nor wasliable to pay any compensation, if awarded. The remaining averments, were denied, either being wrong, or for want of knowledge. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck on 17th January, 2002: (1) Whether Anil died as a result of rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.1, as alleged. -OPP (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? -OPP (3) Relief. 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their claims. -OPP (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? -OPP (3) Relief. 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their claims. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, on record, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident, in question, was caused on account of the rash or negligent driving of the offending tractor, by Ram Phal respondent No.1. It was further held by the claims Tribunal, that respondent No.2, was the owner of the said tractor at relevant time. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.11.00 lacs (Rs. eleven lacs only) to Meena, widow and sunheri, mother of the deceased, in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively, with interest, at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The remaining petitioners, were not held entitled to any compensation. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award of the Claims Tribunal, two appeals, referred to hereinbefore, were filed, one by the claimants/appellants, and the other by the alleged owner of the offending tractor. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The learned Counsel forthe appellants, in appeal No.5506 of 2002, at the very outset, contended thatthe claims Tribunal, was wrong, in awarding very less compensation. He further contended that the Claims Tribunal, was wrong, in taking the dependency at Rs.6,000 per month, whereas, the income of deceased Anil kumar, was proved to be Rs.15,000 per month. He further contended that the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal, was also, on the lower side. He further contended that the claims Tribunal, was also wrong, in notgranting compensation, to the father and sister of deceased Anil Kumar. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, in this appeal, appears to be partly correct. The age of deceased Anil Kumar, atthe time of accident, and death, was about 27 years. This fact duly proved from Ext. P-3, copy of the Matriculation examination certificate. In this document, the date of birth of the deceased, is recorded as 13th January, 1974. This fact is further confirmed from Ext. P-5, copy of the postmortem report, wherein, the age of the deceased, is recorded as 27 years. This fact duly proved from Ext. P-3, copy of the Matriculation examination certificate. In this document, the date of birth of the deceased, is recorded as 13th January, 1974. This fact is further confirmed from Ext. P-5, copy of the postmortem report, wherein, the age of the deceased, is recorded as 27 years. It is proved from the evidence, on record, that the deceased was working as Operator in Honda factory Ltd. The salary certificate of the deceased is Ext. P-2, which is duly proved by mr. R. K. Godara P. W.2, who was an Officer of hero Honda Company at the relevant time. According to this document, the total monthly emoluments of the deceased, were Rs.15,587. Pala Ram, father of the deceased, while appearing as P. W.4, stated that the monthly salary of deceased Anil Kumar, was rs.15,000 p. m. No rebuttal evidence, was produced, to prove that the monthly salary of the deceased Anil Kumar was less than rs.15,000 per month. No doubt, in the salary certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased got Rs.6,866 as production incentive in the month of August, 2000. However, it cannot be said that he was getting the same every month. The Claimstribunal was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.15,000. 10. The Claims Tribunal was, however, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the deceased was only able to contribute rs.6,000 per month, towards his family. Keeping in view the nature of the job of the deceased, in my considered opinion, he must be keeping a sum of Rs.7,000 per month, for his personal maintenance, and other miscellaneous expenses, thereby leaving a sum of Rs.8,000 per month, for his dependents. Since the age of the decease, at the time of accident, and death was about 27 years, it was a fit case, in which the multiplier of 16 was required to be applied, through the claims Tribunal, applied the multiplier of 15 which was in my opinion, on the lower side. The principle of law, laid down in Concord of india Insurance Company Limited V/s. Nirmala dew, was to the effect, that the determination of the quantum of compensation must be liberal not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country, in genuine scales. The principle of law, laid down in Concord of india Insurance Company Limited V/s. Nirmala dew, was to the effect, that the determination of the quantum of compensation must be liberal not niggardly, since the law values life and limb in free country, in genuine scales. The Claimstribunal also held that only Meena, widow and sunheri, mother of the deceased, were dependent upon him (Anil Kumar, deceased ). However, the Claims Tribunal lost sight of the fact, that Ms. Suman, sister of deceased, Anil Kumar, aged about 18 years, a minor were also partly dependent upon him, and partly on the income of her father. No doubt, the father of the deceased was an earning hand, but it was not possible for him to maintain the entire family with his meagre income. In these circumstances, Meena, widow, Sunheri, mother and Suman, sister, being dependent upon him, were entitled to compensation. The compensation, which required to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal, thus, comes to Rs.15,38,000 (Rs.8,000 x 12 x 16 + 2,000 as funeral expenses ). Thus, they are entitled to the aforesaid compensation, as follows-1. Meena, widow Rs.10,00,000 of the deceased.2. Sunheri, mother Rs.3,38,000 of the deceased.3. Suman, sister (minorat Rs.2,00,000 the relevant time) of the deceased. Along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the enhanced amount. The findings of the Claims Tribunal on issue no.2, are modified to the extent aforesaid. 11. In F. A. O. No.70 of 2003, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the claims Tribunal, was wrong, in fastening the liability on respondent No.2, holding him to be the owner of the tractor in question. The learned Counsel, in this appeal, further contended that Ext. R-5, verification report, from the office of the Registering Authority clearly shows that the appellant was not the owner of tractor No. HRO/6460. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, in this appeal, does not appear to be correct. Ext. R-5 is the photo copy of the document, which reveals that the owner of the tractor, bearing registration No. HRO/6460, is randhir Singh son of Hans Raj and Raghubir singh son of Parshadi Lal, whereas, the name of the father of the appellant is Sheotaj. This document was not proved, in accordance with law. It was produced by Ram Phal, driver, while appearing in the witness-box, as R. W.1. This document was not proved, in accordance with law. It was produced by Ram Phal, driver, while appearing in the witness-box, as R. W.1. When this document was exhibited in the court of the Claims Tribunal, an objection was raised by the learned Counsel forthe claimants, regarding its proof and admissibility, which was kept open. It is no doubt, true that in an inquiry in a claim petition, under the Motor vehicles Act, the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, are not strictly applicable. However, the document, on which a party wants to place reliance, must be proved, in accordance with the provisions of law. If a document, is not proved, then the same, cannot be taken into consideration. In Salt Tarajee Khimchand and others V/s. Yelamarti Satyam and other , the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that mere marking of a document, as an exhibit, does not dispense with its proof. The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. Ram Phal, is neitherthe author of document Ext. R-5, nor the same was prepared in his presence, nor the same was signed in his presence, nor he could identify the signatures of the person, who signed the same. Underthese circumstances, he had no knowledge, whatsoever, with regard to Ext. R-5. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this document, was proved, during the course of the evidence of Ram Phal. Incase, the appellant wanted to prove this document, he was required to summon an official from the office of the registering Authority along with record of the tractor, in question, and get proved this document, in accordance with the provisions of law. He did not follow this method. 12. Underthese circumstances, no reliance on this document, could be placed. On the other hand, Ram Avtar, P. W.3, in his cross-examination, stated that Randhir Singh was having possession of the said tractor, as owner. Ram Pal, R. W.1, the driver of the alleged tractor, during the course of cross-examination, stated that he did not know whether the tractor bearing registration no. HRG-6460 was in possession of Randhir singh, and he was actually the owner of the same. Ram Pal, R. W.1, the driver of the alleged tractor, during the course of cross-examination, stated that he did not know whether the tractor bearing registration no. HRG-6460 was in possession of Randhir singh, and he was actually the owner of the same. He further stated that he did not known, whether Randhir Singh, used to take the goods of Shiv Engineering Company, in this tractor, to Hero Honda Factory. In case, this tractor did not belong to Randhir Singh, then he could certainly make a statement, in this regard, and would not have evaded knowledge with regard to the ownership of Randhir Singh, in respect thereof. Mr. P. K. Godara, Deputy manager, who appeared in the witness-box, as P. W.2, stated that the tractor bearing registration No. HRG-6460, used to supply the goods to the factory. Randhir Singh, respondent No.2, appellant, did not appear, as his own witness, to prove that the tractor, in question, did not belong to him. Under these circumstances, the Claimstribunal, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the tractor, in question, was in possession and control of randhir Singh, respondent No.2, at the time of accident. The submission of the learned counsel forthe appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same is rejected. The findings of the Claims Tribunal that Randhir Singh, respondent No.2, was the ownerin possession of the tractor, in question, at the time of accident, are affirmed. 13. Forthe reasons recorded hereinbefore, appeal No.70 of 2003 titled as Randhir Singh v. Meena and others, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The impugned award of the claims Tribunal, is modified and compensation in the sum of Rs.15,38,000 instead of rs.11,00 lacs, awarded by the Claimstribunal, is granted in favourof Meena, widow, Sunheri, mother and Suman, sister of deceased Anil kumar, as per the shares, depicted in para no.10 of the judgment, holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Appellants Meena, Sunheri and suman are also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation of the same. If any amount, has been received by these appellants, under no-fault liability clause, the same shall stand adjusted against the amount finally awarded. Appellants Meena, Sunheri and suman are also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation of the same. If any amount, has been received by these appellants, under no-fault liability clause, the same shall stand adjusted against the amount finally awarded. The shares of the minor appellants, if they have not attained majority shall be deposited in some nationalized bank and they shall be entitled to receive the same on attaining majority.