RAFIQ, J.—This appeal filed by claimants seeks to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar dated 18.10.2001 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased Jagdish Prasad was a driver. Her widow AW-1 Muli Devi in her statement has stated that his employer Babudeen was paying him Rs.3,000 per month. Babu Deen has himself appeared as AW-3 in witness box and stated that deceased Jagdish was driver of his truck no.RNG-1097 which met with the accident. The heavy vehicle trailor that was insured with the respondent insurance company, hit the truck due to which deceased died. This witness has further stated that he is paying Rs.3,000 per month to deceased, however, the own expenses were borne by the deceased himself. The Tribunal wrongly discarded that evidence on the plea that the owner of the truck AW-3 Babudeen did not produce the record or account books to show that he was paying Rs.3,000 to deceased as salary. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification for accepting the daily income of the deceased to be Rs.60 per day and on that basis monthly income at Rs.1,800 when there was no specific evidence that his monthly income was Rs.3,000 per month. Learned counsel submitted that there were five dependents of the deceased, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not justified. Learned counsel submitted that income of Rs.3,000 should be accepted and the claimant should be held entitled to future prospects of 50% on the basis of judgement of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010, decided on 23.04.2012 and compensation should be suitably enhanced. 3. Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company opposed the appeal and submitted that mere oral assertion that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000 per month as salary, cannot be accepted. Neither widow AW-1 Muli Devi, nor the owner of the truck AW-3 Babudeen, were able to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate this fact. The Tribunal has taken Rs.60/- as daily income also considering the fact that the own expenses were borne by the deceased himself. Learned counsel submitted that deduction of 1/3rd for the self expenses of the deceased was also justified as per the law prevalent at that time. The Tribunal has taken Rs.60/- as daily income also considering the fact that the own expenses were borne by the deceased himself. Learned counsel submitted that deduction of 1/3rd for the self expenses of the deceased was also justified as per the law prevalent at that time. He further submitted that benefit of future prospects cannot be granted in a case where there is no permanent employment or definite or certainty of increase in income by way of increments, pay revision etc. which may be available in a government employment. 4. Considering the statements of AW-1 Muli Devi, widow and AW-3 Babudeen, it is evident that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000 per month, but at the same time also considering the fact that accident took place in the year 1996, a sum of Rs.2,000 can be safely taken as the monthly income of the deceased if not Rs.3,000 because he was driver of a heavy vehicle and the evidence adduced by the claimants has not been effectively rebutted by the insurance company. 5. As regards the grant of future prospects, the Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment in the case of Santosh Devi, has observed as under:- “14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/ emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/ emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 6. Thus the appellants are held entitled to future prospects at the rate of 30% in view of judgement of Santosh Devi, supra. The amount of loss of income thus comes to Rs.4,21,200 [(Rs.2000 + 600 (being 30%) - 650 (being 1/4th) = Rs.1950 x 18 x 12 = Rs.4,21,200]. The amount of Rs.5,000 for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.1,000 as cost is however maintained. The appellants are thus held to the total compensation of Rs.4,29,200 (Rs.4,21,200 + 5,000 + 2,000 + 1,000). The appellants are also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.