RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals have been preferred, one by the claimant-appellants and another by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur against the common award dated 16/7/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. While SBCMA No.6932/2011 has been filed by claimant-appellants Tofan Bano, Mohammad Hanif, Kumari Hina, Kumari Ruby and Mohammad Tahir for enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,13,000/- for the death of Abdul Hamid, SBCMA No.6335/2011 has been filed by the RSRTC assailing quantum of compensation. 2. Shri Ram Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in accepting the income of the deceased only at Rs.4000/- per month, whereas deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from the work of denting and painting. Tribunal has committed illegality in deducting 1/4th towards the own expenses of the deceased and has further erred in law in not awarding anything on the head of future prospects. It was argued that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by driver-respondent No.1. In this connection, he has referred to the statement of AW2 Abdul Rahim to the effect that driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, which hit the cycle from behind badly. 3. On the contrary, Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has contended that it was due to own mistake of the deceased that the accident took place. The deceased while riding the cycle was trying to overtake the rickshaw on a road crossing when the indication of red light i.e. to stop the vehicles was there. It was because he hit his cycle into the rickshaw, cycle fell down and the accident took place. The driver was not negligent. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the statements of NAW1 Natthu Singh driver respondent No.1 and NAW2 Yogendra Kumar conductor of the bus, eye witnesses of the incident that accident did not take place from the bus. It was argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law while not considering the fact that neither the name of the driver was there in the FIR nor in the charge sheet filed by the police. It was argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law while not considering the fact that neither the name of the driver was there in the FIR nor in the charge sheet filed by the police. Learned Tribunal erred in law while on the one hand held that negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus and the cyclist and simultaneously accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. Merely because he was earning Rs.3000/- per month, it cannot be a basis to accept his income at Rs.4000/- per month. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the RSRTC failed to prove prima-facie negligence on the part of the cyclist. Tribunal in this connection has considered the statement of NAW2 - Yogendra Kumar conductor of the bus. Learned Tribunal did not accept income of the deceased claimed to be of Rs.8,000/- and rightly accepted the income of the deceased to be of Rs.4,000/- for want of proof of definite income on the basis of material available on record. Since definite income of the deceased has not been proved, enhancement of compensation on the head of future prospects may not be possible. 5. I do not find any merit in either of the appeals, hence both are dismissed. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.