JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the judgment cum award dated 21.2.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MAC No. 7/1990 (114/95) whereby the learned Tribunal partly accepted the claim application filed by the claimants and awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,16,000 on account of death of Shri Amra Ram. 2. Facts in brief are that Amra Ram the son of the appellant No. 1 and brother of appellants No. 2 and 3 met with a fatal accident while travelling in a truck bearing registration No. RSN5042 owned by Narayan Ram, driven by Dale Khan and insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, the truck whilst going from Jodhpur to Balotra, collided with another truck bearing registration NO.GTY4080, which was allegedly parked in the middle of the road. Amra Ram received injuries in the collision and expired while undergoing treatment at the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. 3. The claimants filed and application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act impleading the owner, driver and insurer of the Truck No. RSN5042 in which Amra Ram was sitting as well as the owner and driver of the Truck No. GTY4080 with which the collision happened, leading contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. 4. The respondent No. Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles involved in accident. The Truck No. RSN5042 insured with the Insurance Company was not being plied under a valid permit During pendency of the claim, Rawta Ram the father of the deceased Amra Ram expired. 5. The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration viz., as to whether the accident resulted as a result of rashness and negligent driving by the drivers of the Truck No. RSN5042 and Truck No. GTY4080; as to whether the trucks were being plied under the instructions and directions of the respective owners thereof; as to whether the Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated in view of the defences raised by it; the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and if so, the quantum and apportionment thereof. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that the driver of the Truck No. RSN5042 drove the truck rashly and negligently and was solely responsible for causing the accident. The said finding has not been challenged by any of the non-claimants and has thus become final. The objections and defences raised by the Insurance Company in its reply were overruled as the Insurance Company did not choose to lead any evidence in counter to the claim. The driver, owner and the insurer of the Truck No. RSN5042 were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award, the driver, owner and insurer of the Truck No. GTY4080 were exonerated from the responsibility to satisfy the award, as regards the quantum and apportionment of the claim, the Tribunal held as below: Kamla, the wife of Amra Ram remarried during the pendency of the claim application. The evidence of the claimants regarding the deceased earning a sum of Rs. 2000 per month was discarded. The daily wages prevalent at the relevant time were Rs. 30 to 32 per day and accordingly, the dependency of the claimants was held to be between Rs. 600-700 per month. Multiplier of 13 was applied looking to the age of the parents of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 2000 was awarded for funeral expenses. A sum of Rs. 1000 was awarded towards medical expenses. A sum of Rs. 1000 was awarded for transportation expenses. A sum of Rs. 5000 each was awarded to the mother and wife of the deceased towards mental pain, agony and loss of love, affection and service. A sum of Rs. 1000 each was awarded to the brother and sister of the deceased for loss of love and affection. Accordingly, the total claim was assessed and quantified at Rs. 1,16,000. 6. Shri M.R. Choudhary learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently challenged the manner in which the Tribunal assessed and determined the compensation. He submitted that the deceased was labourer on the truck and was thus covered in the category of skilled labourer. He submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in discarding the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. He further submitted that the rise in income by future prospects was not considered by the Tribunal whilst assessing the claim. He also assailed the quantum of compensation awarded on the other heads. He submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in discarding the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. He further submitted that the rise in income by future prospects was not considered by the Tribunal whilst assessing the claim. He also assailed the quantum of compensation awarded on the other heads. Thus, he urged that the compensation be enhanced appropriately. 7. Per contra, Shri Ghanshyam Vaishnav learned Counsel appearing for the claimants appellants and submitted that no enhancement is called for in the compensation awarded to the claimants. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment cum award and the record. 9. It is not in dispute that owing to the remarriage of Smt.Kamla, wife of deceased Amra Ram during the pendency of the claim proceedings and the death of his father Rawta Ram, the number of claimants was reduced to three. No. positive evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding the income of the deceased by working as labourer in Truck to be Rs. 30 to 32 per day. However, rise in income by future prospects is a mandatory criterion to be considered whilst assessing the compensation, as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of the accident, 50% rise in income by future prospects has to be acknowledged whilst assessing compensation. As the claimants are three in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenses would be l/3rd. The mother appellant No. 1 was awarded a sum of Rs. 5000 for loss of love, affection and service which appears to be inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000. The appellants No. 2 and 3 being the brother and sister of the deceased deserve to be awarded Rs. 5000 each for loss of lover and affection 10. view of the aforesaid discussion the following computation is approved for assessing the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants claimants:- Total Annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 20,000. The appellants No. 2 and 3 being the brother and sister of the deceased deserve to be awarded Rs. 5000 each for loss of lover and affection 10. view of the aforesaid discussion the following computation is approved for assessing the enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants claimants:- Total Annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 30 per day Rs.10,800.00 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects Rs.5,400.00 Rs.16,200.00 l/3rd Deduction from enhanced income towards personal expenditure and needs Rs.5,400.00 Rs.10,800.00 Multiplier to be applied to net income @ 18 Rs.1,94,400.00 Loss of love, affection and service to mother Rs.20,000.00 Rs.2,14,200.00 Loss of love and affection to brother and sister Rs. 5000/each i.e. Rs. 10,000 Rs.2,24,400.00 Funeral Expenses Rs.2,000.00 Rs.2,26,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs.1,000.00 Rs.2,27,000.00 Transportation Expenses Rs.1,000.00 Rs.2,28,000.00 Total compensation awardable Rs.2,28,000.00 Round Figure Rs.2,28,000.00 11. The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the original amount at the rate decided by the learned Tribunal i.e. 12% per annum. On the enhanced amount, the interest applicable would be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 12. the Insurance Company respondent No. 3 is granted six weeks time to deposit the awarded amount. 13. The Tribunal shall disburse the award in appropriate proportions looking to the current status of the claimants. 14. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted toward the amount finally awarded by this Court.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.Appeal allowed. *******