Order This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 88 of 2004. Since the parties are not on other issues except quantum of compensation, we are taking up the said issue and heard the counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants, submits that the deceased was aged about 25 years and evidence was led to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erroneously took the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- and assessed compensation at Rs. 1,60,000/-. Holding that it is a case of contributory negligence 20% of the compensation amount was deducted and finally a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- was awarded. Mr. Anand submitted that having regard to the evidence adduced by the c1aimants appellants, they are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- together with interest awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on the other hand submitted that since no documentary evidence was filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has rightly took the notional income and assessed the compensation. 4. From perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the widow and parent of the deceased have categorically and specifically deposed in their evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,0001- per month from tailoring work as well as from agricultural work. However, no chit of paper was produced in support of the income. Admittedly, therefore, the evidence was led that the deceased was earning member of the family and this fact has not been denied either by the owner or by the Insurer of the vehicle. 5. Be that as it may, when the deceased was an earning member, the question of applying notional income as contained in the Schedule appended to the Act is not applicable and the Tribunal ought not to have taken the notional income for the purpose of assessing compensation. 6. After having considered the facts and evidence on the record, we can safely hold that the deceased was at least earning Rs. 2,0001- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/-in a year. If this amount is taken, then the annual dependency comes to Rs. 16,000/-. Taking multiplier of 16, the net compensation comes to Rs. 2,56,000/-. 6. After having considered the facts and evidence on the record, we can safely hold that the deceased was at least earning Rs. 2,0001- per month i.e. Rs. 24,000/-in a year. If this amount is taken, then the annual dependency comes to Rs. 16,000/-. Taking multiplier of 16, the net compensation comes to Rs. 2,56,000/-. So far deduction on account of contributory negligence is concerned, we deduct a sum of Rs. 30,0001- of the aforesaid compensation amount and hold that the claimants appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- by way of compensation. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 1,28,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date as awarded by the Tribunal. 7. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.