Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, Advocate, appears for the contesting-respondent No.3. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is heard finally and being disposed of. 3. The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Mahendra Singh, who died in a motor-accident took place on 4th March, 2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 17th March, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Case No.134/2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,41,500/- in their favour as under:- 1. Rs.5,29,440/- For loss of income 2. Rs.10,000/- For loss of Consortium and deprivation of love and affection 3. Rs.2,000/- For funeral expenses 4. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not determining the correct age of the deceased and thereby not applied the proper multiplier for the purpose of determining the dependency in the present case. He contended that the Tribunal has observed that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record in respect of age of the deceased, whereas the Exhibit-13, which was relied upon by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased, makes it clear that date of birth of deceased, as mentioned therein, is 20th July, 1974 and, as such, he was about 29 years of age on the date of accident; he, therefore, contended that looking to the age of the deceased, which was in between 25 to 30 years, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 in place of 15 as applied by it, therefore, the impugned Award of the Tribunal to that extent may be modified and accordingly the amount of compensation may be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, although justified the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal but admits that the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned in the Exhibit-13 and the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record with regard to the age of the deceased, is not correct. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award as well as the record of the Tribunal which was summoned. 7. The deceased Mahendra Singh Gurjar was the Central Government's employee in AMN Depot, Bharatpur, and he was drawing the salary as per the details mentioned in the certificate (Exhibit-13); and the date of birth and date of retirement, both, were also mentioned in it. The Tribunal referred Exhibit-13 for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased and dependency but wrongly mentioned this fact that there is no documentary evidence on the record about the age of the deceased whereas the same is proved from Exhibit-13 itself, therefore, to that extent the finding of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. 8. From Exhibit-13 itself the age of the deceased is determined as 29 years and consequently the multiplier of 18 is applied in the present case, as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the correct amount of compensation under the head of loss of income comes to Rs.6,35,328/- (35296x18). The appellants will also be entitled to Rs.12,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of consortium, deprivation of love and affection and funeral expenses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,47,328/-. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified. The total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,41,500/- to Rs.6,47,328/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 18th June, 2003 up-to the date of payment. No order as to costs.