ORDER U. C. Maheshwari, J. 1. The appellants/ claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (For short "the Act"), for enhancement of the sum awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balaghat in M. V. Case No.90/05 vide award dated 21.11.2005 whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Dr. Vijay Kumar Balle in the alleged accident has been awarded against respondent No. 1,3 and 4 by saddling their joint and several liability for the sum of Rs.75,000/- along with the interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition i. e. 27.1.2005. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the deceased Dr. Vijay Kumar Balle, aged about 35 years the husband of the appellant No. 1 while the father of remaining appellants was subject to road accident caused by the respondent No. 1 while driving the truck of Forest Department bearing registration No. CPZ-5360 in rash and negligent manner, resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and during treatment he succumbed to it. As per further averments of the claim petition the respondent No. 1 drove such truck under the instruction of respondent No.2 working under the employment of respondent No.3 and 4. Such truck was registered in the name of respondent No.3 who was working under the authority of respondent No.4. The deceased Dr. Vijay Kumar Balle from his profession of Electro Homeopathy and also from his irrigated agricultural land was earning Rs.9,000/- p. m., due to his untimely death the appellants have been deprived from their dependency on the deceased while the appellant No.1 has also been deprived from the company of her husband. On receiving the information of the alleged accident at P. S. Kirnapur, an offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC was registered against the respondent No. 1. After holding investigation, he was charge sheeted for such offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat. With these averments the appellant have filed their claim for compensation of Rs.51,57,800/- along with the interest on it @ 9% p. a. 3. After holding investigation, he was charge sheeted for such offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat. With these averments the appellant have filed their claim for compensation of Rs.51,57,800/- along with the interest on it @ 9% p. a. 3. In reply of respondent No. 1 and 2 by denying the averments of the claim petition regarding alleged accident, it is stated that on the date of incident respondent No. 1 was driving such truck in normal speed, at the same time the deceased while riding his bicycle in zig-zag manner came in front of the truck, resultantly inspite taking all precautions to avoid the accident by the respondent No. 1 the deceased collided with the truck due to his own negligence he sustained the injuries and letter succumbed to the same. It is further pleaded that the deceased being unemployed person was not the earning member of his family and no one was dependent on him. The compensation is also claimed at higher side on false pretext. The respondent No.2 is wrongly impleaded in the claim petition. With these pleading the prayer for dismissal of the claim by imposing the compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- on appellants is made. 4. In reply of respondent No.3 and 4 by denying the averments of claim petition it is stated that at the time, of accident the deceased Vijay Kumar was carrying some goods in a bag having the weight of 40-50 Kg. on his bicycle and due to such negligence of deceased the bicycle had became unbalanced and collided with the back side of the offending truck. In such premises the alleged accident was not the cause and consequence of any negligent driving of offending truck by respondent No. 1. Such truck was never plied in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. The claim is also filed in excessive side without annexing any admissible documents in support of the same. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made. 5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence on appreciation of the same holding that the alleged accident was the cause and consequences of rash and negligent driving of aforesaid offending truck by respondent No. 1 under the employment of respondent No.3 and 4, the claim of the appellants was awarded for the sum as stated above. 5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence on appreciation of the same holding that the alleged accident was the cause and consequences of rash and negligent driving of aforesaid offending truck by respondent No. 1 under the employment of respondent No.3 and 4, the claim of the appellants was awarded for the sum as stated above. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the appellants have come forward with this appeal for further enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the appellants' after taking me through the pleading, evidence and exhibited documents available on the record argued that the appellants have successfully proved that the deceased was working as Electro Homeopathy Doctor and besides such profession also cultivating his agricultural land as former and he was earning Rs.9,000/- p. m. In any case on proper appreciation of evidence and exhibited documents the Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/-p. m. He also argued that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) keeping in view the number of dependents on the deceased mentioned in the array of claim petition and also on the array of appeal memo the Tribunal ought to have deduced 1/4 sum out of the income of the deceased regarding his expenses which would have spent on him had he been alive. With these submission he prayed for reasonable enhancement in the sum awarded by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 7. On the other hand responding the aforesaid argument Shri N. K. Agrawal, learned GA by justifying the findings of the Tribunal said that the same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence are in conformity with existing legal position. In such premises under the available circumstances the awarded sum being just and proper does not require any interference at this stage for further enhancement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal as well as the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the claim of the appellants at very lower side only for the sum of Rs.75,000/-. 8. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal as well as the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding the claim of the appellants at very lower side only for the sum of Rs.75,000/-. Such approach of the Tribunal is neither inconsonance with the available evidence nor sustainable under the existing legal position. 9. In support of the claim petition on recording the deposition, by the appellant No. 1 Kalawati Bai (A. W. 1), categorically deposed that her husband being Electro Homeopathy Doctor was earning Rs.7,000/- p. m. from such profession and besides that he was also earning Rs.2,000/- p. m. from his irrigated agricultural land, out of such income he was used to give Rs.6,000/-p. m. to her for expenses of the family. On going through her cross examination I have not found any material circumstances destroying the version stated by her in chief. Her version is further supported by Krishna Kumar (A. W. 2) resident of same village who stated that the deceased being Doctor was earning Rs.7,000/- to 8,000/- p. m. from his profession and Rs.2,000/- p. m. from agricultural land. Such version is also remained intact in his cross-examination as the same has not been destroyed in any manner. 10. On behalf of the respondents to destroy the aforesaid version of the claimants' witnesses no positive evidence has been adduced on record. The deposition of witness of respondents namely Hanif Ahmad (N.A.W.1) could not be believed to hold or assess the income of the deceased because he being resident of some other place never seen the professional activities of the deceased. Other witness Motilal Dwivedi (NAW 2), who was working as Forest Guard in the department of respondent No.3 and 4 could also not be believed in this regard, as he is also not the resident of the village of the deceased. Other examined witness of the respondent namely Mishrilal (NAW 3) has neither been examined to prove the income of the deceased nor he stated any material thing in this regard. 11. On re-appreciation of aforesaid evidence it is apparent that the deceased was working as Electro Homeopathy Doctor. Other examined witness of the respondent namely Mishrilal (NAW 3) has neither been examined to prove the income of the deceased nor he stated any material thing in this regard. 11. On re-appreciation of aforesaid evidence it is apparent that the deceased was working as Electro Homeopathy Doctor. It is true that in order to prove the income of the deceased neither any copy of the income tax return nor any account book or any other documents have been proved on the record. But one thing has been certainly proved on record by Ex.P. 15 that the deceased was a Electro Homeopathy Doctor and in such premises it could be assumed that he was a skillfull and trained person in the Electro Homeopathy to provide the treatment to the villagers. Thus keeping in view overall available circumstances of the case the income of the deceased from his profession and the agriculture both is held to be Rs. 150/- per day. In such premises his monthly income is held to be the Rs.4,500/-, the same is taken up to assess the compensation for awarding the claim of the appellants. 12. On taking up such monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- his annual income comes to Rs.4,500 x 12 = 54,000/-. Out of it in view of the principal laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Supra), taking into consideration four number of dependents on the deceased 1/4 sum regarding expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on him had he been alive, then annual dependency of the appellants on the deceased comes to Rs.54,000-13,500= 40,500/-. In view of the other principal laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cited case of Sarla Verma (Supra) on adopting the multiplier of 16 which is applicable to the age of the deceased i. e. 35 years the total dependency of the appellants on the deceased come to Rs.40,500 x 16 = 6,48,000/-, the same is awarded to the appellants. Besides this the appellants are also entitled for the sum of Rs.20,000/- on the traditional heads like funeral expenses, expectancy of life, loss of estate and also the appellant No. 1 on account of loss of company of her husband. The same is also awarded. Besides this the appellants are also entitled for the sum of Rs.20,000/- on the traditional heads like funeral expenses, expectancy of life, loss of estate and also the appellant No. 1 on account of loss of company of her husband. The same is also awarded. I have not found any evidence showing that any amount was spent by the appellants on the treatment of the deceased, so on such head they are not entitled for any sum, so the argument of the counsel in that regard is hereby failed. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion by allowing this appeal in part the sum of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants is enhanced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.6,68,000/- as discussed above. The enhanced sum shall also carry the interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability to indemnify the enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against respondent No. 1, 3 and 4 as held by the Tribunal also. Till the aforesaid extent the impugned award is modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.