The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of genuine evidence regarding actual income and dependency figures in determining compensation for motor accident cases. The court emphasized the need for a fair assessment of the evidence to ensure just compensation.

( 1 ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other appeals being M. A. Nos. 628, 722 and 766 of 2002 because all these appeals which are filed by the claimants arise out of one common award dated 21. 11. 2001 and secondly they also arise out of same accident.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal (M. A. No. 642 of 2002) filed by the claimant against an award dated 21. 11. 2001 passed in Claim case No. 68 of 1999 by III M. A. C. T. , indore. By impugned award the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,500 to the claimants for the death of one Anil, who died at the age of 18 in a motor accident. According to the claimants, the award of rs. 1,64,500 is on lower side and hence it needs to be enhanced. It is for this purpose, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. So the question involved in this appeal is whether any case for enhancement is made out and if so to what extent?

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Sameer Verma, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 6.

( 4 ) IT may be stated that all other findings such as manner in which the accident occurred, the issue regarding liability on the insured/insurer, the issue regarding negligent manner of driving of vehicle in question are decided in claimants' favour and hence the same are not under challenge in this appeal. In other words, these findings are not assailed even by respondents either by filing cross-objection or cross-appeal and hence the same need not be again gone into it in this appeal. It is for this reason, we do not wish to increase the length of this order by narrating all those facts and finding.

( 5 ) IT is a death case, where Anil aged 18 years succumbed to injuries and died. It is not in dispute that the injuries suffered by Anil were in the motor accident and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act from the insured/insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of father of deceased Damodar, pw 9, on the question of the deceased's monthly income and proceeded to apply the principle of notional income provided in Schedule (Rs. 15,000) and accordingly determined the compensation payable to the claimants. It is on this basis, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 16 as provided in the Schedule looking to the age of the claimant and determined the compensation of Rs. 1,64,500 payable to the claimants, i. e. , appellants of M. A. No. 642 of 2002.

( 6 ) WE have perused evidence of father of the deceased Damodar, PW 9. He has deposed that Anil deceased was earning rs. 3,500 per month and was giving to his father for sustenance of the family. According to Damodar deceased Anil was doing painting work on day-to-day basis and was earning Rs. 3,500 for the sustenance of family. This evidence of Damodar was totally discarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, Tribunal took notional income of rs. 15,000 to be the basis for determining the compensation payable to the claimants.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, there does not appear any basis for rejecting outright the evidence of Damodar. We fail to see as to why an old father who is totally depending upon his son for sustaining the survival of his family would speak a lie. Had it been so, father would have given exaggerated figure of the monthly income of his son. Nowadays earning of Rs. 100 per day by any manual labourer is a fact reality. In this case Anil was doing a job of the painting and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Damodar when he said Anil was in a position to earn a sum of Rs. 3,500 per month. Since he was earning on day-to-day basis, we take his monthly income to be Rs. 3,000 in place of Rs. 3,500.

( 8 ) ONCE we hold that the deceased's income was Rs. 3,000 per month, the dependency figure works out to Rs. 2,000. In this view, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 24,000. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total compensation is worked out to Rs. 24,00