JUDGMENT 1. - Against the judgment and award dated 20.07.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in Claim Case No.438/1998, (Old Case No.267/1994), the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred this present appeal and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the cross-objection No.33/2003. 2. The present appeal and the cross-objection, both have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 had preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, while alleging that on 01.07.1994, deceased Hari Ram was standing near village Tadawara in order to get his own truck bearing No.RNG-1809 repaired, at that time, a truck bearing No.RJ02-G- 1167, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver - respondent No.4 (in Appeal No.803/1999) became out of control and turned turtle and Hari Ram was crushed under the truck, as a result of which, he died on the spot. It is alleged in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck No. No.RJ02-G-1167 and a compensation of Rs. 32,13,000/- was claimed. In the claim petition, the driver, owner of the truck No.RJ02- G-1167 and the Insurance Company, where the truck was insured, were made parties. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, has decided the Issue No.1 against the non-claimants and in favour of the respondent-claimants, while holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck No.RJ02-G-1167. While deciding the Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased-Hari Ram as Rs. 3000/- per month and after deducting Rs. 1250/- under the head of 'personal expenses', has held that the deceased used to spend a sum of Rs. 1750/- per month on his dependents and after applying the multiplier of 8, the learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 1,68,000/- and after awarding a sum of Rs. 15000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/-. 5. 1750/- per month on his dependents and after applying the multiplier of 8, the learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 1,68,000/- and after awarding a sum of Rs. 15000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/-. 5. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.3, has held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid licence and as such decided the Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, while arguing the appeal, has contended that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in deciding the Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company, though the Insurance Company has proved, on the basis of documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence, that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending truck - Suresh Kumar was not holding a valid licence and as such, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company that the learned Tribunal has not considered the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company, which clearly reveals that the driving licence of Suresh Kumar, produced during the course of investigation before the police in respect of the criminal case, was not genuine one as the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer has verified that no such licence in the name of Suresh Kumar has been issued by it. The learned counsel has also contended that from the statement of NAW.1 Hussain Udaipuri, it was proved that the Insurance Company had conducted an investigation and during the course of investigation, it was found that the driving licence produced by Suresh Kumar before the Police, during the course of investigation in respect of criminal case, was not genuine and in view of the above evidence, the Issue No.3 ought to have been decided in favour of the Insurance Company, however, the findings given by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.3 are contrary to the evidence available on record and, therefore, the same are perverse and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has not questioned the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for cross-objectors has argued that there is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.3 and the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that from Ex.P/8, it is clearly revealed that the driving licence, in the name of Suresh Kumar - the driver of the offending vehicle, was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar, whereas the Insurance Company has conducted the inquiry in respect of the said licence from the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer and, therefore, the documents produced on behalf of the Insurance Company were irrelevant, and the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the same, though on other grounds. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 is not in conformity with the evidence produced on behalf of the cross-objectors claimants and the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month. The learned counsel for the cross-objectors has also argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the amount of Rs. 1250/- under the head of personal expenses of the deceased, though, no such evidence to this effect is available on record. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier of 8, whereas as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act' hereinafter), the multiplier of 17 should have been applied in the present case. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that the Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier of 8, whereas as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act' hereinafter), the multiplier of 17 should have been applied in the present case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the cross-objectors that a very meagre amount under the heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the learned counsel for the cross-objectors has prayed for setting aside the findings given by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 and has also prayed for adequate enhancement in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the appellant as well as the cross-objectors. 10. So far contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company in respect of Issue No.3 are concerned, the same are considered but for rejection only. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the Licence No. 98630 dated 27.03.1989 was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar, whereas the Insurance Company has produced the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 in respect of the verification conducted by it from the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer and looking to the above fact, the documentary evidence produced by the Insurance Company is not relevant and cannot be relied upon. The learned Tribunal has not relied upon the said documentary evidence on different grounds, but rightly so as the Ex.A2 and Ex.A5 are not bearing numbers, date and signature of the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer. The testimony of NAW.1 - Hussain Udaipuri has also rightly been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal as the said witness was not the author of the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and has simply produced the said documents, which are not at all reliable. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding the Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and, therefore, there is no force in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding the Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and, therefore, there is no force in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. So far cross-objection preferred on behalf of the claimants in the present appeal is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month because no cogent and reliable evidence has been produced by the claimants before the learned Tribunal in respect of the income of the deceased. From perusal of the statements of AW.1 Smt. Sharti Devi and AW.2 Munshi Ram, it is clear that they have failed to give any proof regarding the income of the deceased and as such the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of the income of the deceased are not liable to be interfered with. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the amount of Rs. 1250/- from the income of the deceased under the head of personal expenses. A person from the rural background cannot be expected to spend more than ⅓rd of his income on his own in a family of four including himself. The learned Tribunal has also grossly erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in the present case. From the post mortem report, it is clear that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and the said fact has also not been disputed by any of the contesting parties and in such circumstances, as per the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, the multiplier of 17 was required to be applied. 13. So far compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in respect of other heads is concerned, the same is not liable to be interfered with. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cross-objection preferred by the claimants is allowed and the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 are set aside. It is held that the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cross-objection preferred by the claimants is allowed and the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 are set aside. It is held that the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 3000/- per month and ⅓rd amount is liable to be deducted in consideration of the expenses, which the deceased would have incurred towards his own maintenance had he been alive. Looking to the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 17 is liable to be applied as per Second Schedule of M.V.Act. As such the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and it is held that the respondent-claimant-cross-objectors are entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/-: Rs. 3000-1000 = 2000 x 12 x 17 = 4,08000/-: Other Heads : Compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses : Rs. 1500 + 2000 = 17000/- 15. Thus, total amount of compensation is, therefore, enhanced up to Rs. 4,25,000/- (Rs.4,08000+17000=4,25,000/-) from Rs. 1,85,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of application till realisation. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the total amount of enhanced compensation to the appellant-claimants within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objection preferred by the claimants is allowed.Appeal Dismissed, Cross - Objection Allowed. *******