ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. The claimants are an appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Claim Case No.71 of 2009. 2. The facts are not in dispute and mainly the computation of compensation by the Tribunal is under challenge. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants that the deceased as per the claim application was working as a driver of the truck and was having a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. It is also submitted that mother of the deceased (C.W.2) has specifically stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, despite this the Tribunal has computed compensation by taking Rs. 5,000/- per month. Further, the age of the deceased to be 55 years has been taken as assessed in the post-mortem examination report, whereas the witnesses have stated the age to be 45 years. Since the dependents were six in number, therefore, deduction under the head of living and personal expense of the deceased should have been 1/4 th , but the Tribunal has taken it to be 1/3 rd and under the conventional head, total sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has defended the award and submitted that there was a contradictory statement of the witnesses on the point of monthly salary of the deceased and no documentary evidence was produced, therefore, the income of Rs. 5,000/- and not Rs. 9,000/- has been taken. 5. I find force in the argument advance on behalf of the Insurance Company that there are contradictions in the testimony of the Claimant Witness No.2, who is the mother of the deceased and Claimant Witness No. 1, who is the son. The son has specifically stated the income to be of Rs. 150/- per day, whereas the mother of the deceased has stated to be Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, this finding of fact regarding monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- needs no interference. 6. It is further argued that the deceased was not on a fix salary as no pay slip has been adduced into evidence and as per the postmortem examination report, his age was 55 years, no contrary evidence has been led on behalf of the claimants to dispute the age of the deceased. 7. Taking Rs. 5,000/- needs no interference. 6. It is further argued that the deceased was not on a fix salary as no pay slip has been adduced into evidence and as per the postmortem examination report, his age was 55 years, no contrary evidence has been led on behalf of the claimants to dispute the age of the deceased. 7. Taking Rs. 5,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased as he was 55 years at the time of his accident, 10% will be applicable for loss of income under the head of future prospect and 1/4 th shall be the living and personal expenses of the deceased for computing the annual dependency. The final compensation amount will work out as under: Annual income of the deceased 5000 X 12 Rs. 60,000/- per annum Annual income + 10% future prospect = Rs. 66,000/- 1/4th living and personal expense Rs. 16,500/- After deduction Rs. 49,500/- Multiplier of 11 as the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident Rs. 49,500 X 11= Rs. 5,44,500/- Conventional Head Rs. 84,000/- Total Rs. 6,28,500/- The Insurance company is liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 6,28,500/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by the Tribunal. This Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. It goes without saying that the payment already made by the Insurance Company will be deducted from the final compensation.