ORDER 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 15.3.2023 passed in Claim Case No.48/2022, whereby raising singular ground of incorrect assessment of income of deceased Omprakash. The death due to accident and consequential liability of Insurance Company is not under dispute. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 9.1.2022 deceased Omprakash was going by his moped No.MP-14-MC-3731 from village Piplyajodha to Mandsaur for attending his duty at job. When he reached at village Manankheda, he was standing at four lane, Manankheda, Car No.MP-14-CC9599 came from Mandsaur side and dashed into standing deceased Omprakash. The said car went on to dash into the divider of the four lane and dashed into another Trailer No.RJ-09-GD-1060, because of which one more person died. The case was registered at Crime No.20/2022 for the said accident. 2.1 The claimants-appellants filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of deceased Omprakash. The claims Tribunal after considering the material available on record awarded total compensation of Rs.21,87,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.18,90,000/- was awarded for loss of dependency. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased was working as Radiographer at Dev Diagnostic Centre, Mandsaur. He was working as X-ray Operator and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The deceased was having a Diploma of Lab Technician and the documents were exhibited as Ex.P/13 and P/14. In support of which Dr. Bharat Sangtani (AW-2) deposed before the claims Tribunal that deceased was working as Radiographer at Dev Diagnostic Centre, Mandsaur for last five years. The registration certificate of Diagnostic Centre is exhibited at Ex.P/17. Incometax returns of the aforesaid centre were also brought on record in form of Ex.P/18 to P/22. Even the salary certificate of the deceased for Rs.20,000/- per month was on record as Ex.P/16. However, the claims Tribunal disbelieved each and every document. It was established by the appellants that the said centre has paid Rs.7,71,000/- in the shape of salary to its employees, as per Income-tax return submitted he, thus argued that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to disbelieve the claim of income of the deceased. He, thus prays for enhancement of compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that although Dr. He, thus prays for enhancement of compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that although Dr. Bharat Sangtani deposed that he was paying Rs.20,000/- per month to the deceased, however, he did not bring any of the documents, which would have shown that the deceased was being paid Rs.20,000/- per month as salary, neither the pay-slip nor the attendance register was brought on record. He, thus submits that Income-tax returns only provides for total expenditure and not a proof of salary of Rs.20,000/- per month to the deceased. He submits that proper compensation has been awarded by the claims Tribunal. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record of the claims Tribunal particularly, Ex.P/14, P/15, P/16 as well as P/17 to P/22 it is crystal clear that deceased was having Diploma in Radiography and he was employed at Dev Diagnostic Centre, which was properly submitting Income-tax returns, however, there was no clear evidence of income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month, hence in the considered view of this Court it would be safe to take income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month looking to the qualification he was having and the employment, which was proved, but without proving the income. Consequently, the compensation for loss of dependency would now change to Rs.28,35,000/- and after deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.18,90,000/-, the appellants are now entitled for a further amount of Rs.9,45,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. This enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. 7. It is seen from para 33 of the award that the claims Tribunal has awarded interest on the part of compensation granted under the head of future prospects only from the date of award, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Hence, it is directed that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest from the date of filing of claim application till its payment. 8. It is seen from the record that appeal has been valued at Rs.6,00,000/-, the appellants are directed to pay deficit Court fees within a period of four weeks from today. Hence, it is directed that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest from the date of filing of claim application till its payment. 8. It is seen from the record that appeal has been valued at Rs.6,00,000/-, the appellants are directed to pay deficit Court fees within a period of four weeks from today. In case of failure to pay deficit Court fees within the period of four weeks, the appellants are not entitled for interest beyond the period of four weeks. 9. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed off.