A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved against the award dated 22.2.2001 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 139 of 2000.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.5.2000 deceased Prakash Meena was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 06-MM 9451 from Kukdeshwar to Rampura. One Bal-beer Singh was driving the said motor cycle. From opposite side bus bearing registration No. MP 14-K 2711 was coming which was being driven by respondent No. 1 driver Daulatram rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcyclist. On account of the accident deceased Prakash Meena died on spot. He was taken to Kukdeshwar Government Hospital where he was examined. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Kukdeshwar and criminal case was also registered. The deceased was unmarried and aged about 20 years. The father and mother both have filed claim petition for claiming compensation of Rs. 6,75,000. The claim was contested by the insurance company and the facts were denied. It was further objected that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. The driver and owner both have also denied the claim and submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the injured Balbeer Singh. After recording the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has also held that the insurance company has failed to prove that respondent No. 1 driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and found that the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 20 years. In the post-mortem report, Exh. P-7, his age was shown as 22 years. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal considered the same between 20 and 22 years. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month and after deducting '/3rd amount, assessed the yearly dependency at Rs. 12,000 and applied the multiplier of 7 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,000, against which the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement.
3. We have heard Mr. Anil Goyal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record. None was present for the appellants-claimants as also for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the yearly dependency at Rs. 12,000 on the basis of formula given in the Schedule in the absence of any cogent evidence on the record. It was submitted that the deceased was working as a driver on J.C.B. Machine of Jaya Construction Company and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. The Tribunal found that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence that deceased was working as a driver on J.C.B. Machine of Jaya Construction Company. In the absence of any documentary evidence or evidence of the company where deceased was working, the Tribunal has not relied on the evidence of his father. In fact, it was the burden on claimants to prove that the deceased was working as a driver in some company. It was also the burden on the claimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month but the claimants have failed to prove such an income of the deceased. When there is no evidence on record about income, the Tribunal can consider the structured formula of notional income as per Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, in this case even if the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per year is taken into consideration, the yearly dependency would come to Rs. 12,000. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and dependency on the basis of structured formula. The Tribunal has not rightly applied the multiplier in this case. In fact for the age group of 20 to 25 years, multiplier of 17 has to be applied and not of 7 as per the Schedule. Therefore, the multiplier is enhanced from 7 to 17 and compensation is assessed to Rs. 12,000 x 17 = Rs. 2,04,000. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000 as a taxi fare and also for funeral expenses which is on lower side. This amount is enhanced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 15,000. A sum of Rs. 15,000 is also awarded to the appellants towards loss to estate. Therefore, in this case looking to the evidence on record the just, proper and appropriate compensation would be Rs. 2,49,000 instead of Rs. 1,02,000 for the death of a young boy of 20 years.
5. Thus, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from 1,02,000 to Rs. 2,49,000. The claimants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition, i.e., 10.7.2000 till its payment. Therefore, it is directed that the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable for the said payment to the claimants with interest. Any amount paid earlier is adjustable. The balance amount be deposited within a period of two months. No order as to costs. Record be returned.