JUDGMENT : U.C. Maheshwari, J. This appeal is directed on behalf of the appellants u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') for enhancement of sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 4 of 2007, vide award dated 14.11.2008, whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Inder Singh in the alleged road accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs. 5,85,500 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The facts necessary to adjudicate this appeal in short are that the appellants-claimants filed their claim petition contending that said Inder Singh, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 while the son of appellant Nos. 5 and 6, on 18.12.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night while riding his motor cycle was going to Morena from village Rairu. On the way respondent No. 1 while driving the trala bearing registration No. MP 07-G 0512 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased Inder Singh, resultantly, he fell down, sustained injuries and died. On lodging the report of the incident with the Police Station Purani Chhawni, same was registered against the respondent No. 1 for the offence of section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, later he was charge-sheeted for such offence. As per further averments, the deceased was running a dhaba at some village on Mumbai-Agra Highway, out of which he was earning Rs. 7,000 per month and he used to spend such income on the family members, the appellants. Due to his untimely death, the appellants have been deprived not only of his love and affection but also of their dependency. The aforesaid offending trala was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. With these averments, the appellants have filed their aforesaid claim petition for the compensation of Rs. 29,08,000 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 2. In the reply of respondent Nos. The aforesaid offending trala was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. With these averments, the appellants have filed their aforesaid claim petition for the compensation of Rs. 29,08,000 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 2. In the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that on the date of the incident such trala was driven by respondent No. 1 holding a valid and effective driving licence hence on holding any liability of the impugned claim on them the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3 as the same was duly insured with it. 3. In reply of respondent No. 3 denying the averments of the claim petition, in addition it is stated that the aforesaid offending trala was driven by respondent No. 1, contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, without having a valid and effective driving licence. With these material pleadings the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made. 4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and after recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same by holding that Inder Singh had died in the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid trala by respondent No. 1 and awarded the claim for the sum as stated above, the liability to indemnify such claim has been saddled jointly and severally against all the respondents. 5. Mr. R.P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by referring to the pleadings, evidence led by the parties and exhibited papers from the record of the Tribunal said that the deceased was involved in hotel business and was running the hotel in the name of 'Prince Hotel', and contrary to the available evidence the income of the deceased has been held at Rs. 4,000 per month. The same requires reconsideration for further enhancement. In continuation, he argued that contrary to the settled principle by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , instead of 1/5th the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th out of income of the deceased regarding his expenses, which he would have spent on himself, had he been alive. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , instead of 1/5th the Tribunal has deducted 1/4th out of income of the deceased regarding his expenses, which he would have spent on himself, had he been alive. In such premises, the claim was awarded at lower side. Future prospect of the deceased, in spite of proving his business, was not taken into consideration. He also argued that looking to the status and living standard of the deceased and his family members, in which his two children were taking education in some private English medium school on whom he was spending a huge sum, their claim was awarded by the Tribunal at very lower side. Keeping in view the line of expenses of the deceased his income should have been assessed by the Tribunal. With these submissions, he has prayed for further reasonable enhancement in the sum awarded by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. 6. Responding to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, by justifying the findings and approach of the Tribunal said that the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and even on re-appreciation of the evidence, there is no scope of further enhancement in the matter. In continuation he said that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased being the owner or the proprietor of the alleged dhaba was earning Rs. 7,000 per month as stated in the claim petition. He further said that in the lack of any legal evidence showing the alleged dhaba was taken by the deceased from its true owner on rent merely on the basis of agreement or the receipts executed and issued by Bachchan Singh, PW 3, in the lack of any documents of title it could not be deemed that the deceased was running his own dhaba. He further said that the deceased was living below the poverty line and, therefore, his income could not be assessed to be more than Rs. 4,000 per month. He also argued that in view of the uncertainty of life and the circumstances as the deceased was not in permanent service in any department, so in such premises the appellants did not have any authority to claim enhancement in the awarded sum on the basis of any future prospect and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. He also argued that in view of the uncertainty of life and the circumstances as the deceased was not in permanent service in any department, so in such premises the appellants did not have any authority to claim enhancement in the awarded sum on the basis of any future prospect and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Having heard the counsel and keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court along with impugned award. True it is that in order to prove that the deceased was the proprietor or owner of the alleged dhaba, no admissible document has been placed on the record and the agreement showing the tenancy of the deceased with respect to place where alleged dhaba was situated in view of the provisions of section 35 of the Stamp Act is not admissible document. So the same could not be used for any purpose. Even otherwise the alleged agreement creating the tenancy for one year being unregistered is also not admissible. On perusing the impugned award, it is apparent that the finding of Tribunal is not only based on the documents or agreement but the same is also based on unrebutted evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants. It is apparent fact on record that the finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000 per month from the hotel or dhaba business has not been challenged on behalf of any of the respondents by filing a separate appeal or cross-objection in the present matter. So in such premises, the finding of the Tribunal holding that deceased being involved in the hotel business was earning the sum for his livelihood could not be interfered. Although on considering the case for enhancement of the quantum the finding holding the income at Rs. 4,000 per month could be taken into consideration for re-assessing the same. So it is held that at this stage respondent No. 3, insurer, did not have any authority to challenge the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. Although on considering the case for enhancement of the quantum the finding holding the income at Rs. 4,000 per month could be taken into consideration for re-assessing the same. So it is held that at this stage respondent No. 3, insurer, did not have any authority to challenge the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. It also appears from record, available evidence and the impugned award that in the lifetime of the deceased, the aforesaid dhaba was the only business of his source of earning and out of the income of same he was managing all the affairs of the family, the household expenses, the education expenses of children who were studying in private English medium school. He being the breadwinner was maintaining his family having eight persons in it including himself. I have not found any evidence showing that except the deceased any of the claimants or members of his family was the earning member of the family. In the aforesaid circumstances, it could be assumed that in order to maintain his family and managing all other affairs, certainly he was earning near about Rs. 5,000 per month. Now-a-days, the education of two minor children could not be managed unless spending Rs. 1,500 per month. Besides this family of 7 or 8 persons could not be maintained, unless Rs. 150 per day is spent on them, besides this, the deceased being involved in hotel business was skillful person and in such premises also his income could not be treated to be less than Rs. 175 per day. Such income may be at higher side but could not be said to be at lower side. So in such premises, after going through the depositions of Romi, PW 1, and Bachchan Singh, PW 3, it is held that deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 per month and the Tribunal has committed perversity in assessing his income at Rs. 4.000 per month. Thus, such finding of the Tribunal is modified by holding the income of deceased at Rs. 5,000 per month and the same is taken for the assessment of the total dependency of the appellants on the deceased. 8. On taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000 per month, his annual income comes to Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 5,000 per month and the same is taken for the assessment of the total dependency of the appellants on the deceased. 8. On taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000 per month, his annual income comes to Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000, out of which keeping in view the number of dependent persons on the deceased, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the court is bound to deduct 1/5th sum out of the aforesaid annual income regarding expenses of the deceased, which he would have spent on himself had he been alive, then the dependency comes to Rs. 60,000 - Rs. 12,000 = Rs. 48,000 per annum. In view of the age of the deceased, i.e., 28 years as held by Claims Tribunal in view of the above cited case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 17 is applicable to the case at hand. On adopting such multiplier of 17, the total dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 48,000 x 17 = Rs. 8,16,000, besides this the appellants are also entitled for the sum of Rs. 20,000 under the conventional heads like funeral expenses, expectancy of life and loss to estate and also the appellant No. 1 who is deprived of the company of her husband. The same are awarded. 9. Accordingly, the claim of appellants is awarded for the sum of Rs. 8,36,000, out of which the sum which has already been paid to them in compliance of the impugned award shall be deducted. In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal in part, the sum of Rs. 5,85,500 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,36,000; as discussed above, the enhanced sum shall also carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability of enhanced sum is saddled jointly and severally against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as held by the Tribunal. To this extent, findings of the impugned award are hereby modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.