JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-original opponent against the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No. 22, Ahmedabad, ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 24.06.2009 in MACP No. 143 of 2001, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,51,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. Cross Objection No. 94 of 2015 has been preferred by the original claimants claiming that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and is required to be enhanced as such and has also challenged the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding 20% apportionment of negligence on the part of deceased. In the First Appeal as well as in the Cross-objections, the issue of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has been challenged. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 02.09.2000 at about 08.30 p.m., the deceased was driving scooter bearing No. GJ-1-HB-9093 and his friend Rajkumar was sitting as a pillion rider on the scooter. The accident occurred when the deceased went to Maninagar and reached near Cadila Laboratory, he crossed the Cadila bridge. At that time, the driver of the appellant-original opponent was driving AMTS bus bearing No. GRS-8832 (Route No. 18) and came in excessive speed on wrong side and dashed with the scooter of the deceased. As a result of this collision, the appellant sustained grave injuries and he was immediately taken to the LG hospital, where he was declared dead. Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Sunilkumar Nair has filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to pass the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw for the appellant-AMTS and learned Advocate Shri Hiren Modi for the Respondents- original claimants. 5. This Court has perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. The appellant- AMTS has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the facts and evidences on the record, more particularly the conduct of the deceased while driving the vehicle. This Court has perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. The appellant- AMTS has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the facts and evidences on the record, more particularly the conduct of the deceased while driving the vehicle. It is contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was no documentary evidence to support the income assessed by the learned Tribunal of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 7. On the point of negligence, learned Tribunal has examined the evidence on the record including the evidence of the driver of the opponent bus as well as FIR, panchnama of the scene of accident etc. From the evidence on the record, it clearly establishes that the AMTS bus was proceeding ahead and the deceased was plying his scooter behind the bus. It further appears that driver of the AMTS bus suddenly applied brake and in the result, the bus suddenly stopped and deceased who was plying his scooter behind the bus dashed with the bus from behind. In the aforesaid scenario, the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that though the driver of bus suddenly applied brake, the deceased who was plying his scooter behind the bus could have taken due care and caution to avoid the accident and that appears to have not done so far by the deceased. In the result, the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding of contributory negligence on the part of driver of opponent bus to the extent of 80% and on the part of deceased to the extent of 20%. 8. On the point of quantum, the claimant has pleaded in the petition that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 26 years, but the appellant has failed to adduce any document including birth certificate or any other evidence to prove his age. Therefore, in absence of any better documentary evidence, the age of the claimant is required to be counted as per decisive evidence available on the record. Therefore, his age is required to be believed as 26 years at the time of accident. In that view of the matter, the claimant falls in the age group of 25 to 30 years. 9. Therefore, his age is required to be believed as 26 years at the time of accident. In that view of the matter, the claimant falls in the age group of 25 to 30 years. 9. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have narrated in the petition that the deceased was doing work of fabrication and he used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to prove his income, the claimants has produced income certificate issued by B.A. Engineering stating that he was earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month, but the same has not been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the year of accident and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month as per minimum wages rate prevailing at the time of accident for skilled workers. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in "Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr." reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the prospective income of the deceased is required to be considered and therefore, 50% is required to be added. Accordingly, it comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 3,000 + 1,500). 10. Now, from the aforesaid amount of monthly income, the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in "Sarla Verma (Supra) and taking into consideration that the deceased was unmarried and therefore, 1/2 amount is required to be deduced towards personal expenses. Thus, on deducting 1/2 amount, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,250 [Rs. 4,500-Rs. 2,250 (i.e. 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses)]. Therefore, the annual yearly loss of income or dependency would come to (Rs. 2,250 X 12=) 27,000/-. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years, the proper multiplier would be 17. Thus, on applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency or future income to the claimants would come to Rs. (27,000 X 17)= 4,59,000/-. 11. Further, the original claimants are entitled to Rs. 55,000/- towards conventional heads such as loss to estate, funeral expenses etc. Further, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 20% amount towards contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is required to be mentioned that the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%, which should not be disturbed as such. 55,000/- towards conventional heads such as loss to estate, funeral expenses etc. Further, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 20% amount towards contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is required to be mentioned that the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%, which should not be disturbed as such. 12. In view of the above, in short, the appellant-original claimant shall be entitled to the following amounts towards compensation: Rs. 4,59,000 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 55,000 Towards conventional amount Rs. 5,14,000 Total Rs. 1,02,800 20% deduction towards contributory negligence Rs. 4,11,200 Total 13. The Tribunal has awarded an amount Rs. 3,51,400/- to the original claimants, and therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. [(4,11,200 - 3,51,400 (i.e. the amount awarded by the Tribunal)]= Rs. 59,800/-. 14. In the result, the cross-objections filed by the original claimants stand allowed. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal of Rs. 3,51,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 4,11,200/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till its realization. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 24.06.2009 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The enhanced amount shall be deposited with the learned Tribunal within a period of THREE MONTHS from today. On being deposited, the learned Tribunal is directed to pay total amount of compensation to the original claimants after making proper verification by way of account payee cheque. If any amount lying before this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith whereas all the amount would be paid to the claimants as per the direction issued by the learned Tribunal in the original award. 15. In view of the above, present First Appeal stands dismissed and cross-objections filed by the original claimants stand allowed. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. No order as to costs.