SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 383 of 1994 filed by the claimants and M. A. No. 449 of 1994 filed by the non-applicant insurance company. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 21. 11. 1990 at 10. 30 a. m. the deceased Bahadursingh, husband of claimant no. 1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3, was going on his scooter No. CIM 269 to Mhow. The non-applicant No. 2, Sukhdevsingh was employee of non-applicant no. 1, the owner of the truck, came near rajendra Nagar Police Station, Indore, driving truck No. MKM 2070 rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter of the deceased from back side as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and died. The deceased was aged about 48 years and was Professor, Government degree College at Mhow. He was getting Rs. 5,705 per month as salary/the claimants lodged a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for award of Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent and were proceeded ex parte. Appellant-non-applicant no. 3, insurance company, in M. A. No. 449 of 1994 admitted that the truck No. MKM 2070 was insured with it but resisted the claim and pleaded that non-applicant no. 2 had no valid licence. It was also asserted that the deceased was driving the scooter rashly and died of his own negligence. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of both sides, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MKM 2070 by respondent No. 2. It held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,705 per month and after deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the dependency of the claimants at rs. 3,800 per month and by using multiplier of 11 computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,01,600 to which Rs. 25,000 were further added for loss of consortium and thus awarded total compensation of rs. 5,26,600 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. 3,800 per month and by using multiplier of 11 computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,01,600 to which Rs. 25,000 were further added for loss of consortium and thus awarded total compensation of rs. 5,26,600 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Being aggrieved of this award, the claimants have filed M. A. No. 383 of 1994 for enhancement of compensation amount and insurance company has filed M. A. No. 449 of 1994 for setting aside the award. ( 3 ) MR. Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicant insurance company, submitted that the tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant No. 2. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He also submitted that it has not been proved that the non-applicant No. 2 was having valid licence. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the claimants (M. A. No. 383 of 1994), on the other hand, submitted that the non-applicant No. 2 had valid licence. He further submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that he deceased was going to be promoted to the post of Principal very soon. He, therefore, prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced. ( 4 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the impugned judgment and material on record. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly believed the evidence of Gurudayal Singh, CW 3, who witnessed the accident. He deposed that the deceased was going on his scooter at Rajendra nagar intersection, ahead of him, the truck no. MKM 2070 came there with very high speed and struck against the scooter of the deceased Bahadursingh, as a result of which he fell down and died on the spot. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the non-applicants. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. ( 5 ) NOW we come to the question of quantum of compensation. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the non-applicants. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. ( 5 ) NOW we come to the question of quantum of compensation. It has come in the evidence of claimant No. 1 Surinder kaur, the widow of the deceased and R. C. Sharma, CW 2, the head-clerk of Degree college, Mhow where the deceased was serving as Professor that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,200 + Rs. 1,505 D. A. , total rs. 5,705 per month. They have also stated that the deceased was going to be promoted to the post of Principal, Degree college. The pay-scale of this post was rs. 4,500-Rs. 7,300. The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of advancement in life and career. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in case of General Manager, Kerala State road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), held that in assessing the income of the deceased, the future prospects of advancement in life and career of the deceased should also be taken into consideration. The pay of the deceased was Rs. 1,032. Their Lordships having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career estimated monthly income of Rs. 2,000. In this case, multiplier of 12 was selected for the deceased who was aged about 39 years. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged about 48 years and he was to retire at the age of 60 years. Under the circumstances, we adopt multiplier of 10. Monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,705 per month. We are taking into consideration the future advancement in career of the deceased and estimate his income to be Rs. 6,500 per month or rs. 78,000 per year. In view of Susamma thomas' case (supra), after deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 52,000 per year. By applying multiplier of 10 the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 5,20,000. Surender Kaur, the widow is entitled to rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to rs. 5,25,000. 52,000 per year. By applying multiplier of 10 the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 5,20,000. Surender Kaur, the widow is entitled to rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to rs. 5,25,000. ( 6 ) IN view of above, the appeal (M. A. No. 449 of 1994) of the appellant insurance company deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The appeal of the claimants (M. A. No. 383 of 1994) is partly allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and it is directed that the insurance company, the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay the amount of Rs. 5,25,000 to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 25. 1. 91 till realisation, within 2 months from today. The amount deposited by the appellant insurance company shall be adjusted with proportionate interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .