JUDGMENT 1. - Against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in Claim Case No.41/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation in favour of the claimants and fastened the liability of paying the amount of compensation upon the appellants-owners and respondent No.10 - Driver of the vehicle, Appeal No.910/2004 has been preferred by the appellant-owners of the vehicle and Appeal No.356/2005 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of both these appeals are that Sawai Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 8 has died in an accident took place on 26.10.2000. It was alleged that when the deceased Sawai Singh, along with his brother AW.2 Mohan Singh, was proceeding towards his village on Bhiyand Road, suddenly a truck No.RJ19-G-4890 came from opposite direction and collided with Moped M-80 bearing No.RJ15-M-466, which was being driven by the deceased - Sawai Singh. In that forehead collision, Sawai Singh died. 3. A claim petition was preferred on behalf of the respondent-claimants before the Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 3, has held that the truck No.RJ19-G- 4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram, who was not holding any valid licence and, therefore, the insurance company, with which the truck was insured, is not liable for payment of any compensation and held the appellants in appeal No.910/2004and the driver of the truck liable for payment of compensation. While deciding Issue No.2 and assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- under the head of 'loss of income' after deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has awarded certain amounts under different heads and as such a total compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- has been awarded. 4. 3000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- under the head of 'loss of income' after deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has awarded certain amounts under different heads and as such a total compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- has been awarded. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants in Appeal No.910/2004 has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4, and has argued that while deciding the Issue No.1 against the appellants, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of AW.2 Mohan Singh, whereas from bare perusal of the statement of Mohan Singh, it has not been proved that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the statements of NAW.2 Anopa Ram, NAW.3/1 Kundan Lal and NAW.3/2 Deepa Ram, it is clear that at the time of accident, the vehicle truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by NAW.3/2 Deepa Ram, who was holding a valid licence, however, the learned Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the statements of Anopa Ram, Kundal Lal and Deepa Ram and wrongly decided the Issue No.4 in favour of Insurance Company. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company had not placed any material on record to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants in respect of the Issue No.4 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the findings given by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 are absolutely perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. While arguing the Appeal No.356/2005 on behalf of the appellant-claimants, the learned counsel Mr B.L.Tiwari has contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month only, whereas the claimants have adduced evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased against his personal expenses. 3000/- per month only, whereas the claimants have adduced evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased against his personal expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has further contended that looking to the large number of dependents of the deceased, it cannot be said that the deceased would have spent ⅓rd of his total earning on his own. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of 'future prospects'. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in MACD 2012 (SC) 97 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 3381 . 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and argued that the appellant-owners of the vehicle and the claimants have failed to prove that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by a person other than Anopa Ram and it is an admitted fact that Anopa Ram was not holding any valid licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding the Issue No.1 against the appellant-owners. It has also been argued that the evidence, adduced by the appellant-owners to prove the fact that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Deepa Ram, was not convincing and the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly not relied upon the said evidence while deciding Issue No.4. It has also been argued that the appellant-claimants have failed to prove by producing any material on record to suggest that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 3000/- per month and in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month, which is also assessed without there being any evidence to that effect. 3000/- per month and in such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month, which is also assessed without there being any evidence to that effect. The learned counsel for the respondents have also argued that no material was available on record to suggest any addition in the income of the deceased in future and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly not given any finding in respect of addition of income of the deceased in future. 7. In both the appeals, the findings given by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue Nos. 5 & 6 have not been challenged. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of rival parties and perused the record. 9. After perusal of the statement of AW.2 Mohan Singh, this Court is of the opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos.1 and 3 are not in conformity with what has stated by AW.2 Mohan Singh. The relevant portion of the statement of AW.2 is reproduced as under: " ;g ckr lgh gS fd xkM+h pykus okyk LVS;fjax ij gh cSBk Fkk o vuksikjke nkSM+ dj uhps vk;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vuksikjke gekjs ikl nkSM+ dj vk;k Fkk blh vk/kkj ij ge M~kbZoj vuksikjke gksuk fy[kk;k FkkA ;g eq>s irk ugha gS fd V~d ij M~kbZoj dkSu Fkk o ml fnu dkSu pyk jgk Fkk---------A " ;g ckr lgh gS fd vuksikjke dk uke eSaus vankt ls fy[kk;k Fkk] eSaus mldks xkM+h pykrs ugha ns[kkA " 10. From the above statement, it is clear that AW.2 has named Anopa Ram as driver of the insured truck No.RJ19-G-4890 on the basis of his own guess only. The said witness has specifically stated that the person, who was driving the vehicle, was sitting on driver seat and Anopa Ram alighted from the vehicle and came to the spot, and on this basis only, he has named Anopa Ram as driver of the truck No.RJ19-G-4890. From the above statement, it was not proved that at the time of accident, the truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram. From the above statement, it was not proved that at the time of accident, the truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram. The learned Tribunal has decided the Issue Nos.1 and 3 solely on the basis of statement of AW.2 Mohan Singh and, therefore, in such circumstances, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos.1 and 3 cannot be sustained. 11. NAW.3/1 Kundan Lal in his statement has specifically stated that at the time of accident, Deepa Ram was the driver of the truck No.RJ19-G- 4890. NAW.3/2 Deepa Ram has specifically stated that on the date of accident, he was driving the insured truck. NAW.2 Anopa Ram has also deposed that at the time of accident, Deepa Ram was the driver of the truck No.RJ19-G-4890. On the other hand, NAW 4/1, Shri Sudhir Bhandari representative of Insurance Company has stated that in the investigation conducted by the Insurance Company, it had been proved that Anopa Ram was the driver of the vehicle, however, the said investigation report has not been produced by the Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant owners invited attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr.Case No.1341/2000, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused Anopa Ram from the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and sections 3/181, 107/177, 132/187, 134/187, 183, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of accident occurred on 26.10.2000, wherein Sawai Singh died, the vehicle truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram and the learned Magistrate observed that from the material available on record, there is a possibility that Deepa Ram was the driver of the vehicle. Though acquittal of the accused, in the criminal trial, may not always be a conclusive factor for deciding whether the vehicle was driven by the erring driver or not in a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but it can be a relevant factor, which can be taken into consideration while deciding the issues related to the accident in a motor accident claims case. 13. The evidence produced by the appellant owners to prove the fact that the vehicle was driven by Deepa Ram had not been rebutted by the Insurance Company. 13. The evidence produced by the appellant owners to prove the fact that the vehicle was driven by Deepa Ram had not been rebutted by the Insurance Company. The appellant-owners, by producing a copy of the driving licence of Deepa Ram have proved that Deepa Ram was holding a valid licence at the time of accident. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue Nos.1,3 and 4 are not tenable and are set aside. In the result, the Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of claimants and against the non claimants and the Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are decided in favour of claimants and against the Insurance Company and it is held that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by Deepa Ram, who was holding a valid licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company-respondent No.9 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 15. Consequently, the appeal (CMA No.910/2004) preferred by the owners of the vehicle succeeds and is allowed. 16. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.2, has assessed the income of the deceased - Sawai Singh as Rs. 3000/- per month. On the basis of the material placed on record by the claimants, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the number of dependents of the deceased while ordering for deduction of ⅓rd of the amount against the personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the aspect of addition in the income of the deceased in future. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali & Ors. (supra), has held as under: "In any case, where the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an income of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, it is virtually impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself." 18. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra), has held as under: "In any case, where the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an income of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, it is virtually impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself." 18. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the question of future prospects of the deceased and has held as under: "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% 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." 19. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding income of the deceased is liable to be modified. 20. It is held that the learned Tribunal was not right in deducting ⅓rd of the amount of the salary against personal expenses of the deceased and looking to the number of dependents of the deceased, only 1/10th of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted. Though the deceased was self employed but the aspect of addition in his income in future has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, whereas in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra), a self employed person will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time. 21. It is observed that the learned Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased - Sawai Singh was 45 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has given this finding on the basis of statement of respondent No.1 Hemi wife of Sawai Singh - AW.1 and on the basis of post mortem report (Ex.29). 21. It is observed that the learned Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased - Sawai Singh was 45 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has given this finding on the basis of statement of respondent No.1 Hemi wife of Sawai Singh - AW.1 and on the basis of post mortem report (Ex.29). No question regarding age of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal has been raised by either of the parties. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20, whereas as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 14 should have been applied in the present case. 22. In view of the above discussions, the findings given by the learned Tribunal, in respect of the Issue No.2, are liable to be modified accordingly. However, it is made clear that so far the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, transportation charges etc. , the same are not liable to be interfered with. 23. As such, the award passed by the learned Tribunal in respect of the loss of income is modified and it is directed that the appellant claimants are entitled for total amount of Rs. 6,34,680/-:Amount of compensation with 12 months salary plus 30% addition in the salary minus 1/10th towards personal expenses and 14 as multiplier :Rs. 3000+30%-1/10th = Rs. 3510 x 12 x 14 = Rs. 5,89,680Other Heads : Compensation for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, transportation charges, repairing of motorcycle:Rs. 2000 + 40000 + 1500 + 1500 = 45000/.Thus, total amount of compensation is Rs. 589,680+45,000=Rs.6,34,680/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of application till realisation. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. The appeal preferred by the claimants (CMA No.356/2005) is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the total amount of compensation to the appellant claimants within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.Resultantly, both the appeals succeed and are allowed.Appeals Allowed. *******