JUDGMENT : Mr. U.C. Maheshwari, J. - Appellants-claimants have come forward with this ap­peal under Section 173 of the Motor Ve­hicles Act 1988, in short "The Act" for en­hancement of the sum awarded by the Mo­tor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 36/2008, vide award dated 07.11.2008, whereby their claim with re­spect to the vehicular death of Shri Sanjay in the alleged motor accident has been awarded against the respondents by sad­dling their joint and several liability to in­demnify the sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- with in­terest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. The facts giving rise to the present ap­peal in short are that the appellants herein filed the claim petition contending that the said Sanjay aged 27 years, the husband of appellant No. 1, while the son of remain­ing appellants on 09.02.2007 while sitting as a pillion rider on the scooter of one Sanjeev was going towards some place of exhibition. On the way near some bridge such scooter was dashed by a truck bear­ing registration No. M.P. 08/D/5653 driven by the respondent No. 1 Dinesh in rash and negligent manner resultantly Sanjay had fallen down and sustained the injuries and due to such injuries he succumbed to death. On receiving the information of such acci­dent a Criminal case for offence under Sec­tions 279, 337, 338 & 304-AIPC was reg­istered against the respondent No. 1. After holding investigation of the same, he was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. As per further averments, the deceased being educated person up to B.Sc. Part-II was working as a supervisor with the firm "plant builders" on the salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Besides this, he was also earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by running tuition classes and he used to spend such earning only on his family including the appellants. Due to his untimely unnatural death the appellants have been deprived from such dependency, while the appellant No. 1 has also lost the company of her husband for whole of her life. In such premises, the claim was preferred for the sum of com­pensation Rs. 20,00,000/-. 3. In the reply of the respondents No. 1 & 2 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the alleged acci­dent was not the cause and consequence of any rash and negligent driving of the above mentioned truck. In such premises, the claim was preferred for the sum of com­pensation Rs. 20,00,000/-. 3. In the reply of the respondents No. 1 & 2 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the alleged acci­dent was not the cause and consequence of any rash and negligent driving of the above mentioned truck. On the contrary, the rider of the scooter by riding the scooter in rash and negligent manner caused the accident. In such premises, no liability to pay the compensation could be saddled against them. In alternative, it is stated that hold­ing any liability of the claim against them, the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3-insurer as the vehicle was insured with it. Subsequent to filing of their writ­ten statement, the respondents No. 1 & 2 became ex-parte and the impugned award was passed only in the presence of appel­lants and respondent No. 3. 4. In reply of the respondent No. 3 by denying the averments of claim petition, in addition it is stated that the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy without having effective and valid driving license and the alleged accident was happended due to rash and negligent driv­ing of scooter, by one Sanjeev, on which the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider, therefore, the liability to indemnify the impugned claim could not be saddled against it and prayed for dismissal of the claim. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same hold­ing the death of Sanjay in the alleged acci­dent due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck by the respondent No. 1 and in such premises, holding the age of the deceased to be 24 years on the basis of post mortem report, the appellants claim was awarded for the sum as stated above. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants have come before this Court for further enhancement of the same. 6. Mr. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants have come before this Court for further enhancement of the same. 6. Mr. B.D. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants after taking me through the pleadings, available evidence and the ex­hibited documents from the record of the Tribunal said that while assessing the com­pensation, the educational qualification of the deceased Sanjay and the certificate of his salary issued and proved by his em­ployer "the plant builder" have not been considered with proper approach. Even the future prospects of the deceased keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Trasport Corporation & Another, reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298 was not taken into con­sideration. In continuation, he said that the deceased Sanjay besides the salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month from his employer was also earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from his tuition classes. Despite availability of sufficient evidence in this regard, the Tri­bunal has awarded the claim at very lower side taking into consideration the income of the deceased Sanjay only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The multiplier of 17 was also ap­plied contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in above cited Sarla Verma's case (supra) according to which the multi­plier of 18 is applicable if the age of the deceased is found between 15-25 years. With these submissions, he prayed for fur­ther reasonable enhancement in the sum awarded by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 7. On the other hand, responding to the aforesaid arguments, Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-insurer by justifying the impugned award said that such approach of the Tribunal based on the appreciation of the available evidence does not require any interference at the stage of appeal. According to him, the sum awarded by the Tribunal in the available facts and circumstances is just and proper. In continuation, he said that al­though the certificate of the builder show­ing the salary of the deceased Sanjay @ of Rs. 4,000/- per month has been filed on record, but the same could not be a foun­dation to hold the salary of the deceased Rs. 4,000/- as such the certificate has not been proved by its preliminary evidence by producing the concerning register which is kept by the aforesaid builder to maintain the service record of his employees. 4,000/- per month has been filed on record, but the same could not be a foun­dation to hold the salary of the deceased Rs. 4,000/- as such the certificate has not been proved by its preliminary evidence by producing the concerning register which is kept by the aforesaid builder to maintain the service record of his employees. Besides this, he has also said that the income alleg­edly earned by the deceased from the tu­ition is not proved. In the lack of deposi­tion of any student of the alleged tuition classes, the income from such source could not be inferred. In such premises, there is no scope in the matter for further enhance­ment of the awarded sum. He also argued that the deceased was not in a permanent job, therefore, taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned Sarla Verma's case no amount keeping in view the future prospect of the deceased could be awarded and prayed for dismissed of the appeal. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties, keeping in view their arguments, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal alog with impugned award. 9. It is apparent fact that as per post mortem report the age of the deceased was 24 years. Besides this, the mark sheet of the deceased is also showing his date of birth as 08.03.1982 and the alleged acci­dent happended on 09.02.2007, in such pre­mises also the deceased was below 25 years of the age. By the aforesaid mark sheet it has also been revealed on record that the deceased was not an unskilled person he was educated up to B.Sc. Part-II and in any case he was in a position to do skilled work. It is also apparent from record that the aforesaid salary certificate of the deceased issued by his employer M/s. plant builder has not been rebutted by producing any evidence on behalf of any of the respon­dents. True it is, that the basic foundation of such salary certificate, the concerning register of the "plant builder" in which the service record of his employees were kept and maintained has not been placed on record. Even then mere on account of non-production of such record, looking to the qualification of the deceased Sanjay his salary or the income could not be deemed to be less than Rs. 4,500/- per month. Even then mere on account of non-production of such record, looking to the qualification of the deceased Sanjay his salary or the income could not be deemed to be less than Rs. 4,500/- per month. The educational status of the deceased has not been challenged on behalf of any of the re­spondents, hence, in such premises, it is held that the Tribunal has committed grave error in holding the income of the deceased Sanjay @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in this regard is hereby set aside and the income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. 10. After holding the income of the de­ceased Rs. 4,000/- per month in the avail­able circumstances, keeping in view the age of the deceased i.e. 24 years, I deem it fit to consider his future prospects also for as­sessing the dependency of the appellants. In this respect, before proceeding further I would like to reproduce the concerning principle laid down by the Apex Court an­nounced in the matter of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the same is read as under :- "11. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 AC 1 (SC), this Court increased the income by nearly 100 percent, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the income was increased only by 50 percent and in Arati Bazbaruah, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the income was in­creased by a mere 7 percent. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 percent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the de­ceased had a permanent job and was be­low 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual sal­ary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'). The addition should be only 30 per­cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There shall be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a dif­ferent percentage of increase, it is neces­sary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 11. In view of aforesaid taking into con­sideration the existing income of the de­ceased Rs. 4,000/- it's 50% comes to Rs. 2,000/-, the same is also taken with the ex­isting income of the deceased. Accordingly, the Court has to assess the compensation and dependency taking into consideration the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month. 12. In order to assess the dependency of the appellants on the deceased firstly the Court has to deduct the 1/3rd sum from the income of the deceased regarding expenses of the deceased which would have been spent by him had he been alived. On de­ducting 1/3rd sum, the monthly dependency of the appellants on the deceased comes to Rs. 6000-2000 = 4000/- and in such pre­mises the annual dependency conies to Rs. 4000 x 12 = 48,000/-. In view the age of the deceased 24 years, as per Sarla Verma's case (supra) to find out the total dependency the multiplier of 18 is applicable. On ap­plying the same the total dependency conies to Rs. 48,000 x 18 = 8,64,000/-, the same is awarded. Besides this, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 20,000/- towards con­ventional heads like funeral expenses, ex­pectancy of life, loss of estate and also for the appellant No. 1 who has been deprived from the company of her husband for the remaining life, the same is also awarded. 13. In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal in part the sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from such sum to Rs. 8,84,000/-. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ of 6 per­cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The liability to indem­nify the aforesaid enhanced sum is saddled against respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. To this extent, the impugned award is hereby modified while other find­ings of the same are hereby affirmed. In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.