Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-On 112.1990, Mr. Badri Narain met an accident with a truck and expired on the spot. At the time of his death he was a 42 years old and was working as Staff Car Driver in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation; he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,005/-per month. Since, the widowed wife, the mother and the young children were suddenly deprived of the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, wherein, they claimed a compensation for Rs. 18,17,000/-. 2. The Insurance Company in its written statement claimed that the driver of the truck did not have any valid driving license. It further claimed that the truck was not owned by the Respondent No. 2. Moreover, it claimed that it had not been informed about the alleged accident. In order to prove its case, the claimants examined six witneses and submitted a number of documents. The Insurance Company examined three witnesses. The learned Tribunal framed five issues. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 15.07.1993 the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation for Rs. 3,60,000/-. Since, the claimants are still aggrieved by the said award, therefore, they have filed this appeal before us. 3. Relying on the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1, Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting any compensation for the “future prospects of the deceased”. According to him, the deceased was a permanent employee of the State Roadways Transport Corporation. Thus, he was bound to receive the annual increments, the periodical increase in pay-scales and the regular promotions. However, these aspect have been ignored by the learned Tribunal. 4. Relying on the two decisions of this High Court, namely, in the case of Smt. Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors. vs. Indra Raj Bairwa & Ors., 2004 WLC (UC) 789 and in the case of Smt. Vibha Seth & two Ors. vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari & three Anr., 1999 WLC (UC) 709, the learned Counsel has also argued that since the deceased was Government employee, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have doubled his income in order to calculate the amount of compensation. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari & three Anr., 1999 WLC (UC) 709, the learned Counsel has also argued that since the deceased was Government employee, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have doubled his income in order to calculate the amount of compensation. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Hence, a grave injustice has been caused to the claimants. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Indresh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, has vehemently supported the impugned award. According to him, the relevant factors have been considered by the learned Tribunal and a reasonable compensation has already been awarded to the claimant. Hence, no case is made out for enhancing the compensation amount. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels, we have scanned the evidence on record and analyzed the impugned award. 7. Undoubtedly, the deceased was a permanent employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The deceased still had 16 more years of service before him. Naturally, during this period he would have received the annual increments and the periodical raise in pay-scales, as recommended by the Pay Commission. He would have also been entitled to certain promotions within the Corporation. Therefore, while calculating the compensation to be paid to the claimants, these factors should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. According to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court, as held in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (Supra) while deciding a just compensation “much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master. In every case it is the over all picture that matters and the Court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered”. Thus, while calculating the compensation, the learned Tribunal should have kept the professional benefits that the deceased would have received, had he been alive. 8. Taking a cue from the Susamma Thomass case, this High Court in the case of Smt. Vibha Seth & two Ors. vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari & three Anr., (Supra), was pleased to double the salary of the deceased while calculating the income of the deceased. Similar view has also been held by this Court in the case of Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors., (Supra). vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari & three Anr., (Supra), was pleased to double the salary of the deceased while calculating the income of the deceased. Similar view has also been held by this Court in the case of Kalli @ Kalyani & Ors., (Supra). However, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has not doubled the salary while calculating the compensation amount. Therefore, it has erred in mis-calculating the compensation amount. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,005/-per month. Therefore, the salary should have been calculated to the tune of Rs. 6,010/-per month. Normally, the deceased would have spent 1/3 of the salary amount on himself . Therefore, he would have spent approximately Rs. 4,000/-on his family. Thus, he would be spending Rs. 48,000/-per annum. Taking, the multiplier of 16, as taken by the learned Tribunal, a total amount of compensation under the category of “loss of income” would come out to be Rs. 48,000x16 = (Rs. 7,68,000 /-). 9. It the result, the appeal is allowed. The total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,60,000/-to Rs. 7,68,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal stands modified only to this extent. But the other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.