JUDGMENT Menon, J. -- 1. This is claimant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 15.7.2001 passed by the third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 35/2000 and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 2. Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Naresh who is said to be working as an electrician. It is stated that on 30th March 2000 at about 12:45 in the afternoon Naresh was standing in front of his shop and repairing a tractor which had some electrical problems when a truck bearing MP No. G/5867 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 came and dashed against the tractor, as a result Naresh sustained serious injuries and scummed to the same. Claiming Naresh to be aged about 26 years old and earning a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month compensation was claimed. Learned Tribunal after assessing the facts and circumstances of the case assessed the age of deceased at 23 years on the basis of Ex. P-5 postmortem report and annual income at Rs. 18,000/- after deducting 1/3rd toward self expenses dependency has been assessed at Rs. 12,000/- per annum and compensation of Rs. 2,04,000/- has been awarded. To this further a sum of Rs. 26,000/on all other heads is added and total compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- is awarded. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation awarded is very much on the lower side deceased Naresh was working as electrician· and therefore would be earning at least 200/- per day. Inviting our attention to the judgment rendered in the case of Nirmala (Smt.) and others v. Fazal Khan and others [ 2007 (1) MPWN 23 ] Pachki Bai and others v. Mansha Ram and others [(2006) II ACC 148] and Mohd. Latif and another v. Rashid Khan and another [ 2007 ACJ 1380 ] Shri B.D. Verma tried to submit that considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid case assessment of salary should be made to Rs. 6,000/- per month and after considering the age of deceased to be 26 years as per statement of wife the compensation should be calculated. 3. Refuting the aforesaid Insurance Company submitted that as proper compensation is awarded, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. 6,000/- per month and after considering the age of deceased to be 26 years as per statement of wife the compensation should be calculated. 3. Refuting the aforesaid Insurance Company submitted that as proper compensation is awarded, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 5. As far as the age of deceased is concerned, no documentary evidence is adduced with regard to the same, on the contrary in the postmortem report age of deceased is shown 23 years and the Tribunal has accepted the same in the absence of the cogent documentary evidence with regard to age of deceased, accordingly in assessing the age of deceased as 23 years and applying the multiplier of 17 no error is committed warranting interference. However, in assessing the annual income of deceased at Rs. 18,000/-, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed error, evidence available on record clearly indicates that deceased Naresh was working as electrician and performing the electric work on tractors, and other motor vehicle even though there is no documentary evidence with regard to his actual earning the earning of a mechanic can be easily assesed at Rs. 150/- per day at the relevant time. Even though Shri B.D. Verma counsel for appellants submits that the salary of a employee performing highly skill job, can get Rs. 200/- per day. In the present case there is no cogent evidence to show that Naresh was having a very good business and was earning about Rs. 200/- per day, under such circumstances it would be appropriate to assess his earning at Rs. 150/- per day, normally he would be working at least 25 days and earning the said amount. Accordingly, we assess his monthly income at Rs. 3,750/- and annual income Rs. 45,000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses dependency is assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 17 compensation comes to Rs. 5,10,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 26,000/- on various heads which seems to be reasonable, after adding the same total compensation comes to Rs. 5,36,000/-. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,30,000/- to Rs. 5,36,000/-. 30,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 17 compensation comes to Rs. 5,10,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 26,000/- on various heads which seems to be reasonable, after adding the same total compensation comes to Rs. 5,36,000/-. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,30,000/- to Rs. 5,36,000/-. Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment. 6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and disposed of with the aforesaid.