JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,58,520/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. It is also submitted that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,580/- whereas on the basis of certificate (Ex.12) and online data entry (Ex.14), it is proved that the deceased was employed as driver in K.M.T. Logistic and he was earning Rs.15,300/- per month. The said documents were duly proved by the Manager Rajendra Singh Rathore (AW-3). The Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased by ignoring the oral and documentary evidence regarding his income. Therefore, the compensation is liable to be enhanced accordingly. It is also submitted that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned award. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The claim-petition was filed by the appellants for awarding compensation on account of death of Satyanarayan in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.11.2014. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,300/- per month. However, there is no cogent and reliable documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.15,300/-. Ex.14 & 15 are stated to be online data i.e. driver application and trip settlement sheet, respectively, regarding the income of the deceased. But the said documents have not been duly proved. The documents were not certified as required under Section 65-B of ‘The Indian Evidence Act, 1872’. Such documents can be easily procured and in the absence of authentication, no reliance could be placed upon them. The tribunal has rightly not taken into consideration both these documents. Likewise, the certificate (Ex.12) is not reliable, as clear from the fact that no corroborating evidence has been produced in this regard. Rajendra Singh (AW-3) admitted that the particulars regarding payment of salary to the drivers are submitted by the firm in the Provident Fund Department. The tribunal has rightly not taken into consideration both these documents. Likewise, the certificate (Ex.12) is not reliable, as clear from the fact that no corroborating evidence has been produced in this regard. Rajendra Singh (AW-3) admitted that the particulars regarding payment of salary to the drivers are submitted by the firm in the Provident Fund Department. Therefore, the said evidence was very material to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.15,300/-. Having failed to do so, mere certificate Ex.12, 14 and 15 are not sufficient to accept the claim of the claimants regarding income of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State Government, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5580/- per month. Keeping in view the number of dependents and also taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was married at the time of accident, the tribunal rightly deducted one fifth (1/5) of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of deceased. The deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. Thus, to work out the dependency of the claimants, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. In this way, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,03,520(5580x4/5x12x15). In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.3,21,408/-. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.8,03,520+3,21,408+70,000=11,94,928/-. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 23.01.2017 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.11,94,928/- instead of Rs.8,03,520/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. It is ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.