Judgment Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—For the death of Lal Chand, the appellants claimants have been awarded merely Rs.3 lacs vide award dated 21.3.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura District Jaipur (`the learned Tribunal' for short). Therefore, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The facts, in a short compass, are that on 17.10.2003 while Lal Chand was standing on the side of National Highway No.8, along with his co-worker, Jagdish, near Lakher, a truck, bearing registration No.RJ26-G-599, being driven rashly and negligently, tried to overtake a Tata-407 vehicle. While overtaking the said vehicle, the truck hit Lal Chand and Jagdish. Consequently, Lal Chand expired on the spot and Jagdish suffered grievous injuries. Since the appellants were dependant on Lal Chand, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Meanwhile, Jagdish also filed a claim petition. Both the claim petitions were decided by a common award dated 21.3.2006. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The respondents neither examined any witness, nor exhibited any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs.3 lacs to the appellants. However, the appellants are still aggrieved by the said amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the learned Tribunal has overlooked the evidence of A.W.3, Jagdish, while assessing the income of Lal Chand. According to the learned Tribunal although the claimants had pleaded that Lal Chand was earning Rs.5000/- per month, but there was no documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the said claim. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, Jagdish and Lal Chand were working on the same crusher machine. Moreover, according to Jagdish's testimony, he was being paid Rs.5000/- as a driver of the crusher machine. Since, Lal Chand was also a driver of the crusher machine, it is well proven that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has not given any reason for ignoring the testimony of Jagdish. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Singh, the learned counsel for respondents No.1and 2, and Mr.Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, have contended that the compensation is not meant to be a bonanza. The learned Tribunal has not given any reason for ignoring the testimony of Jagdish. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Singh, the learned counsel for respondents No.1and 2, and Mr.Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3, have contended that the compensation is not meant to be a bonanza. Moreover, since there is no documentary proof of the fact that Lal Chand was earning Rs.5000/- per month, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking his income notionally as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Hence, they have supported the impugned award. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on record and perused the impugned award. 6. While dealing with the claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act,1988 the Tribunal should be aware of the fact that the Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation. The Act has been enacted for the benefit of claimants. Therefore, hyper- technicalities of Evidence Act should not be applied so as to defeat the very basis and purpose of the Act. 7. According to A.W.3, Jagdish, he and Lal Chand were working under the same employer as operator of crusher machine. He stated before the Tribunal that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in ignoring this material piece of evidence which was readily available on record. Merely, because the appellant No.1, Anita Devi, could not substantiate her claim that her husband was earning Rs.5000/- per month by producing documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal could not have jumped to the conclusion that “there is no oral or documentary evidence”. After all, her testimony has been corroborated by the testimony of A.W.3, Jagdish, who was also injured in the same accident. Hence, there is no cogent reason for disbelieving Jagdish's testimony on the point of income of deceased. Once Jagdish's testimony existed on record, the learned Tribunal is not justified in taking Lal Chand's income on a notional basis. Therefore, the very basis for determining the loss of dependency is misplaced. 8. Considering Jagdish's testimony, Lal Chand's income should be taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. As such he would have earned Rs.60,000/- per annum. Out of Rs.60,000/- he would have spent 1/3 amount on himself and he would have spent Rs.40,000/- upon the claimants. Therefore, the very basis for determining the loss of dependency is misplaced. 8. Considering Jagdish's testimony, Lal Chand's income should be taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. As such he would have earned Rs.60,000/- per annum. Out of Rs.60,000/- he would have spent 1/3 amount on himself and he would have spent Rs.40,000/- upon the claimants. Hence, for calculating the loss of dependency, applying the same multiplier 17, as applied by the learned Tribunal, the amount comes as under:- 40000 x 17= 6,80,000/-. 9. In the result the appellants are entitled to receive the compensation as under:- Loss of dependency 40000x17= 6,80,000/- 10. The rest part of the award is confirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to release the enhanced amount of compensation along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 11. The impugned award is modified as indicated above. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure the compliance of the judgment of this court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.