JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.05.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 175/1998 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- has been paid as compensation by the Tribunal, on account of death of a person In a vehicular accident, on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly determined the age of the deceased and consequently the just compensation has not been awarded. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed only one of the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal that the age of the deceased has not been properly determined by the Tribunal. His submission is that in the claim petition the claimants has mentioned the age of the deceased as 45 years and the Tribunal has fixed it as 60 years as recorded in the Post Mortem Report. 4. None of the parties has taken trouble to establish the correct date of birth of the deceased before the Tribunal. The Tribunal appears to have gone on safer side to fix the age of the deceased as 60 years being recorded in the Post Mortem Report. The Post Mortem Report is not strict proof of the age of the deceased person. The Tribunal has not recorded the reasons as to why the age of the deceased recorded in the claim petition has been discarded for determining the just compensation. I feel that the parties should have proved the fact of the age of the deceased and the Tribune' therefore, cannot be blamed for it. 5. I feel that in such a case where the age is disputed and not proved by either of the parties, the other supporting evidence should be appreciated for determining just compensation. The claimants are two sons, one daughter and widow. The elder son of the deceased is of the age of 17 years whereas the second son is 15 years old and third is a daughter of the age of 12 years. This indicates that the age of the deceased could be 45 to 50 years. There is another indicator which also indicates that the age of the deceased could be 45 to 50 years as the age of the widow was 40 years at the time of the accident. This indicates that the age of the deceased could be 45 to 50 years. There is another indicator which also indicates that the age of the deceased could be 45 to 50 years as the age of the widow was 40 years at the time of the accident. However, taking into consideration this evidence, I feel that the age of the deceased could be fixed under such circumstances, as 50 years for striking a balance and the multiplier should have been applied on the age group of 50-55 years for determining compensation. 6. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month after deducting ⅓rd for personal living expenses of the deceased. Taking into consideration the annual income of Rs. 14,400/- and I the multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,58,400/- (14400 x 11). The widow is paid Rs. 10,000/- as consortium. Two sons of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- each for the love and affection which comes to Rs. 10,000/- and the daughter of the deceased is paid Rs. 20,000/- 5 for love and affection. The appellants are also entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses. Total compensation comes to Rs. 2,00,400/- (15400 + 10000 + 10000 + 20000 + 2000) which has been determined according to the structural formula as approved by the Supreme Court vide judgment delivered in case title General Manager, Kerala State Road v. Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) . 7. The award is modified to the extent indicated above. Interest awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. The appeal is accordingly allowed.Award Modified as above. *******