JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. This claim petition is filed for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,54,500/- to Rs. 10,45,500/- in the Motor Accident Claim Petition in which the son of the claimants has expired. 2. As per the facts of the case, on 19.2.1994 the son of the claimants i.e. Bhadresh Kishorchandra Shah was going on scooter having registration No. GJ 7 CD 2121 which met with an accident with mini truck which was coming from behind and crushed the deceased. 3. Learned Tribunal, while taking into consideration the income of the deceased, awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,54,500/- while absolving liability of the insurance company. Aggrieved from this decision of the Tribunal, the original claimants i.e. parents of the deceased has preferred this appeal. 4. The accident in question is not disputed. Even, the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. driver of the truck having registration No. GJ 6 T 6398 was driving in rash and negligent manner is not in dispute. Otherwise also, issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the claimants and against which, no appeal has been filed. 5. The only dispute raised by the present appellants is regarding the income of the deceased, quantum applied and absolving liability of the insurance company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants have produced the Return Form No.2-A of the assessment year 1993-1994. According to which, the income of the deceased was Rs.37,460/- which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and on the contrary in arbitrary manner, annual income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. It is further argued that offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company i.e. Oriental Insurance Company, having office at Nadiad. This fact was mentioned in the claim petition and no dispute was raised by the insurance company regarding its liability but learned Tribunal absolved it from liability. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 8. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased Bhadresh was 28 years. Apart from oral submissions, the claimants have produced the income tax certificate pertaining to assessment year 1993- 1994. According to this certificate, the deceased was having income of Rs. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 8. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased Bhadresh was 28 years. Apart from oral submissions, the claimants have produced the income tax certificate pertaining to assessment year 1993- 1994. According to this certificate, the deceased was having income of Rs. 37,460/- from the grocery shop which was being run by the deceased as well as his father. The only reason given by learned Tribunal for ignoring this income tax return certificate is that preceding three years returns have not been produced. I am of the considered opinion that such type of strict proof is not required in the Motor Accident Claims Petition. Perusal of the income tax return certificate shows that the deceased was having annual income of Rs.37,460/- at the time of his death or at least just before his death. Keeping in view the documentary evidence in the form of income tax return certificate, I assess the income of the deceased to Rs.35,000/- per annum. Accordingly, notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 26,250/- per annum. So, the true loss of dependency will come out to Rs. 36,250/- per annum (Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- = Rs.70,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- = Rs. 1,05,000 divided by 2 = Rs. 52,500/-. Taking into consideration dependency of the mother of the deceased to 50%, income will come out to Rs. 26,250/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, mother of the deceased might be between 45 and 50 years at the time of accident. Resultantly, multiplier of 13 will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants will come out to Rs. 3,41,250/- + conventional charges and other expenses as assessed by learned Tribunal. 9. Keeping in view all the calculations, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 3,66,250/- + interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum which has been awarded by learned Tribunal. 10. Second leg of the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants pertains to the liability of the insurance company. The claimants in the petition has mentioned the name of the insurance company and the place where their office is situated. The insurance company in its reply has nowhere disputed liability of the insurance company or the fact that offending vehicle was not insured with them. The claimants in the petition has mentioned the name of the insurance company and the place where their office is situated. The insurance company in its reply has nowhere disputed liability of the insurance company or the fact that offending vehicle was not insured with them. Perusal of the judgment delivered by learned Tribunal shows that no issue regarding liability of the insurance company has been framed nor any evidence has been laid by either of the parties in this regard. In absence of any dispute having been raised by the insurance company, it cannot be said that offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company or the insurance company was not liable to compensate compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. Otherwise also, learned counsel for the appellants in the appeal filed before this Court has mentioned full details of the insurance company as well as the details of the cover note of the insurance company. Accordingly, I hold that the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company i.e. respondent No.3 in this case. 11. With this modification, the present appeal is allowed. The award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the aforementioned extent. The liability of all the respondents including respondent No.3 Insurance Company to pay compensation amount will be joint and several. The compensation amount of Rs. 1,54,500/- has been paid to the appellants. The difference of Rs. 2,11,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition i.e. 18.3.1994 till the actual payment be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. No costs. Appeal allowed.