JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals arise out of a single award dated 1-2-1997 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Barmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 9/1996 whereby he partly allowed the claim petition, therefore, they are being decided jointly. 2. The facts of the case are that on 24th December, 1995 while the deceased Gopilal along with his friend Mahendra Jangid and Dharamveer, Junior Engineer of Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan were going on for taking measurements of the contract work done by him. They were travelling in the jeep bearing No. RJ 04/C- 0599 at about 10 P.M. while the jeep was near Meghwalo Ki Dhani, it was being driven by its driver-owner respondent non-petitioner No. 1 rashly, negligently and with great speed. As a result of negligence of the driver, the driver of the jeep lost control. The jeep went off the road and dashed against a tree. Gopilal sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. It was further averred that at the relevant time, deceased was young and healthy person of 26 years of age and he was holding degree of Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.) and he was well placed and reputed contractor. Deceased was authorised and approved contractor for P.H.E.D., P.W.D. etc. Departments of the State of Rajasthan and his annual income used to be Rs. 2 lacs per annum. It was also averred that appellant-claimants were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. Notices were issued to the respondent-non-petitioners who filed written-statement. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and tried the case. In support of the claim A.W. 1 Devilal father of the deceased, A.W. 2 Smt. Puran widow of the deceased, R.W. 3 Moti Ram and A.W. 4 Sunil Bhandari were examined. Certain documents including certified copies of the police chailan, postmortem report and income tax returns of the deceased were tendered in evidence, proved and got exhibited. In rebuttal N.A.W. 1 Mahendra Jangid and on behalf of respondent non-petitioner No. 2 one Devandas were examined. 4. Certain documents including certified copies of the police chailan, postmortem report and income tax returns of the deceased were tendered in evidence, proved and got exhibited. In rebuttal N.A.W. 1 Mahendra Jangid and on behalf of respondent non-petitioner No. 2 one Devandas were examined. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the ill fated accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent act of respondent non-petitioner No. 1 and as such issue of rash and negligency of the jeep driver was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. While deciding issue No. 2 which relates to assessment of quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal assessed and awarded in all a sum of Rs. 8,.23,000/-. Since the amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly unreasonable and too low the appellant-claimants preferred appeals for enhancement whereas the Insurance Company preferred appeals for setting aside the award. 5. Firstly, I am taking up the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the driver of the vehicle, from which the accident had taken place, was not a licensed driver. Therefore, the claim could not have been passed in favour of the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the Insurance Company has wrongly averred that the driver of the vehicle was Gopilal. The first version of the incident was reported by the Junior Engineer of the Public Health and Engineering Department, namely Dharmveer. He was occupant of the same jeep and independent person. He had no bias either against the claimants or the non-claimants. He in his deposition has stated that the driver of the vehicle was Mahendra Jangid. Mahendra Jangid in his deposition has stated that he was not driving the vehicle. He admitted that the jeep was of his ownership and he knew that Gopilal was not the licensed driver. It cannot be accepted that owner of the jeep will permit his own vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed driver. The hypothesis put forward by Mahendra Jangid becomes a doubtful proposition by one more fact that Mahendra Jangid was prosecuted for the accident. An accused cannot be expected to say that he was driving the vehicle. That being the position, he has taken a stand that he was not driving the vehicle. The hypothesis put forward by Mahendra Jangid becomes a doubtful proposition by one more fact that Mahendra Jangid was prosecuted for the accident. An accused cannot be expected to say that he was driving the vehicle. That being the position, he has taken a stand that he was not driving the vehicle. An independent witness Moti Ram an occupant of the same vehicle has been examined and he has stated that Mahendra Jangid was the driver of the vehicle. In view of the testimony of the eye-witnesses and contemporaneous document i.e. FIR lodged by Junior Engineer of P.H.E.D. it is established beyond doubt that the vehicle was being driven by Mahendra Jangid. This has also been urged by the learned counsel for the claimants that this ground is not available to the Insurance Company for being urged. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties. Apart from the above submissions, no other point was urged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in its appeals. 9. The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not acceptable because there is a general tendency of the non-claimants to avoid admission of the guilt. In the instant case, Mahendra Jangid was an accused, wherein prosecution has been launched at the instance of an independent person Dharamveer who is not interested either in the claimants or the Insurance Company. Further, independet witness Motiram in his cross-examination has not been shaken and he has clearly stated that Mahendra Jangid was the driver of the vehicle. In the background of the evidence adduced by the parties, it can safely be held that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 that Mahendra Jangid was driving the vehicle cannot be disturbed. That being the position, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company have no merit and hence they are dismissed. The cross-objections filed by claimant Hurami and others are also dismissed. 10. Now, I first take up the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants in claim case No. 9/96 Smt. Puran and others v. Mahendra Singh and others. The case of the claimants is that the Tribunal has awarded less claim to the claimants. The basis for awarding the claim has been deduced by the Tribunal on hypothetical basis. 10. Now, I first take up the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants in claim case No. 9/96 Smt. Puran and others v. Mahendra Singh and others. The case of the claimants is that the Tribunal has awarded less claim to the claimants. The basis for awarding the claim has been deduced by the Tribunal on hypothetical basis. It was not the case of the claimants that the deceased could have joined the Government servant as Junior Engineer and would have earned a sum of Rs. 5000/-. The claimants have produced the income tax returns for different years and they vary from Rs. 62,000/- to Rs. 1,67,000/- and it has been urged on behalf of the claimants that the basis should be Rs. 1,67,000/- annually because the deceased was a Government contractor of A Category and his business was likely to increase. The formula adopted by the Tribunal is that deceased would have earned a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as a Junior Engineer Is incorrect. Even otherwise, if the salary of Junior Engineer is taken into consideration, than too the Tribunal has not considered the impact of 5th Pay Commission whereby the salary of Junior Engineer has been increased and it is not Rs. 5,000/-. A Junior Engineer would be getting around Rs. 1,000/- per month, therefore, the basis adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect and enhancement should be made. 11. Counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that inflated income tax returns were filed after the death of the deceased. They cannot be made the basis for awarding the claim on the count of salary of Junior Engineer. Learned counsel for the insurance Company was not an agreement with the counsel for the claimants but he was unable to defend the fixation of Rs. 5,000/- as salary of Junior Engineer. Further, he has not been able to substitute any other figure for that salary. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and am of the opinion that even if the basis taken by the Tribunal is taken into consideration and the tentative salary which the Tribunal could have considered for a junior Engineer, then an effort should have been made by the Tribunal to assess the correct salary of the Junior Engineer which was not done. if Rs. if Rs. 10,000/- per month is taken to be the correct salary of the Junior Engineer, then according to the Tribunal, if Rs. 1,000/- is deducted from the salary of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 9000/- remains, which comes out to Rs. 1,08,000/- annually. If the multiplier employed by the Tribunal is applied, the total amount comes to more than Rs. 17 lacs. Since, there is no evidence available on record as to what could have been the salary of the Junior Engineer and further employment in Government service, is contingent to many other factors, therefore, that cannot be considered to be a base for calculating as to what could have been the income of the deceased. 13. But, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case where the deceased was not an employee and was only a contractor and if the vagaries of the trade are taken into consideration, then one may go either on extreme astronomical sum or lose heavily. That being the position, nothing definitely can be said and it would be appropriate that if a sum commensu rating to the standard of living of the claimants at the time of the deceased is taken into consideration. A sum of Rs. 12 lacs appears to be reasonable to be awarded to the claimants. Accordingly, the award of Rs. 8,23,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 12,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application until the date of payment. 14. Apart from the wife and children of the deceased, the mother of the deceased has also preferred a claim which is also before this Court in appeal. She has also been awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of the total claim awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be definitely a sum which is inappropriate. That being the position, out of Rs. 12 lacs with interest. Share of Rs. 2 lacs with interest be deposited in a Scheduled Bank for the benefit of the mother so long as she is living. The interest accruing on this sum of Rs. 2 lacs with interest will be paid by the Bank directly to the mother of deceased, Smt. Anachi, appellant. Out of remaining Rs. 10 lacs with interest, three fixed deposits receipts should be made by the Tribunal of Rs. The interest accruing on this sum of Rs. 2 lacs with interest will be paid by the Bank directly to the mother of deceased, Smt. Anachi, appellant. Out of remaining Rs. 10 lacs with interest, three fixed deposits receipts should be made by the Tribunal of Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest each in the name of each claimants namely Smt. Puran, Shri Govind and Shri Mayank. The fixed deposit receipts of Govind and Mayank would be renewed until they attained majority and at the stage of their attaining majority they will be entitled to encash the F.D. Rs. and use the money as they wish. The F.D. in the name of Smt. Puran will be for a period of five years. Remaining Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest will be used by Smt. Puran for herself, Smt. Anchi and for the children which will be paid in cash. After the death of Smt. Anchi, the amount of the fixed deposit in her name will be utilised by Smt. Puran for the marriage of the children. The entire exercise as aforesaid would be done under the supervision of the learned Tribunal. Any amount paid hereinbefore as claim will be adjusted towards the 2.5 lacs with interest to be paid in cash to Smt. Puran for the benefit of the family. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.Order accordingly. *******