JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal is directed against me judgment and award dated 15.3.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali whereby the claim application filed by the claimants applicants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called; "the Act") was allowed in part and they were granted compensation to the tune Rs. 2,42,400 with interest @ 9% upon the death of Shri Gajja Ram in a road accident which occurred on 30.8.1998. 2. Facts in brief are that the deceased Gajja Ram a car driver by profession was carrying some passengers in Car Taxi No. RJ19-T-1203 on 30.8.1993 at 1.30 A.M. While the taxi was proceeding from Takhatgarh to Ramdeora and reached near the Village Kharda, a truck bearing Registration No. PY01-F-6080 being driven in a rash and negligent fashion came from the opposite direction and collided with the taxi resulting into the instantaneous death of Gajja Ram and injuries to the occupants of the taxi. 3. An F.I.R. No. 134/1998 was registered in relation to the accident wherein after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver respondent No. 1 Shri K. Palani Sami. 4. The appellants claimants being the wife and daughter respectively of late Shri Gajja Ram filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune Rs. 23,51,200. It was pleaded in the claim application that Gajja Ram was 33 years of age at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 4,800 per month by working as a taxi driver. He was also paid Rs. 50 per night as allowance while going out of station. 5. The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration and while deciding the claim application held the driver of the Truck No. PJ 01-5-7080 responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. The claimants were held entitled to compensation. The claim was partly accepted and as against the total claim of Rs. 23,51,200 the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,42,400 as compensation. The owner, driver and the insurer of the truck were held jointly and severally responsible to indemnify the claim. As these findings have not been challenged by any of the non-claimants, the same have become final against them. 23,51,200 the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,42,400 as compensation. The owner, driver and the insurer of the truck were held jointly and severally responsible to indemnify the claim. As these findings have not been challenged by any of the non-claimants, the same have become final against them. The only issue which thus remains alive for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to any enhancement in the compensation. 6. Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the claimant appellant No. 1 came out with a specific case that Gajja Ram was earning Rs. 4,800 per month by working as a taxi driver but the Tribunal, without any justification held the income of the deceased Gajja Ram to be a paltry sum Rs. 1,800 per month only. He submitted that the claimantscarat with the specific case that the deceased was 33 years of age but the Tribunal without any justification held his age to be 37 years. He further submitted that no consideration was made by the Tribunal towards rise in income by future prospects. Learned Counsel submitted that a meagre amount Rs. 5,000 each was awarded to the appellant No. 1 towards loss of consortium and to the daughter appellant No. 2 under the head of loss of love and affection which is unjustly low and deserves to be enhanced appropriately. He thus prayed that the appeal accepted and the compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced suitably. 7. Per contra Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the income certificate filed by the claimants bore cuttings and thus the Tribunal rightly discarded the same. He further submitted that as per the prevailing rates of wages in year 1998, the income of a taxi driver could not haw been more than Rs. 1,800 per month, and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,800 per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 16 after holding the age of the deceased to 37 years which is unjustified in the light of the table formulated by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . As per him, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. He, therefore, submitted that the claim should be reduced appropriately. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . As per him, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. He, therefore, submitted that the claim should be reduced appropriately. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 37 years as against the claimant's case that he was aged 33 years. The finding is justified as it is based on the age entered in the driving licence of the deceased himself. 10. The next issue which needs to be addressed is regarding the finding of the Tribunal about the income of the deceased. The certificate Ex.-14 which was filed by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased is a simple inscription on a slip of paper signed by one Kalu Chand. Kalu Chand by way of the document certified that Gajja Ram was working as a driver with him and was being paid Salary @ Rs. 4,800 per month. Kalu Chand was not examined in evidence. The certificate bears cuttings as observed by the learned Tribunal. If at all the claimants intended to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,800 per month by working as a driver with Shri Kalu Chand, then it was essential for them to examine Kalu Chand in evidence more so because the certificate bears cuttings. Contrary to the certificate, the claimant AW-1 Pabu Bai claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,000 per month as salary. Thus, it is manifest that the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased was highly contradictory and was rightly discarded. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in discarding the document Ex.-14 which was submitted by the claimants as a proof of income of the deceased and held his income to be Rs. 1,800 per month looking to the nature of his job and the year of accident. 11. Coming to the next question i.e. addition to the income by considering future prospects which is mandatory in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 11. Coming to the next question i.e. addition to the income by considering future prospects which is mandatory in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . The Tribunal apparently erred in not making addition in the income of the deceased by future prospects while calculating the loss of income. As the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of death, addition of 50% deserves to be made in the income of the deceased for calculating the loss of income. 12. The paltry sum of Rs. 5,000 each awarded to the claimant wife under the head of loss of consortium and the claimant daughter under the head of loss of love and affection is unjust and deserves to be enhanced appropriately. The appellant No. 1 deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the loss of consortium and the appellant No. 2 daughter deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 for loss of love and affection. At the same time the contention advanced by Mr. Singhal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 whilst calculating the loss of income also carries force. As per the table formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the appropriate multiplier to be applied in reference to the age of the deceased would be 15 and not 16. 13. In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident viz. 37 years, the following computation deserves to be approved for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants:- Annual income of the deceased Rs. 1800x12 Rs.21,600.00 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects Rs.10,800.00 Rs.32,400.00 1 /3rd Deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure of the deceased Rs.10,800.00 Rs.21,600.00 Multiplier to be applied @ 15 Rs.3,24,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.2,000.00 Rs.3,26,000.00 Loss of consortium to wife Rs.40,000.00 Rs.3,66,000.00 Loss of love and affection to the daughter Rs.20,000.00 Rs. 3,86,000 ___________ Total compensation awardable Rs. 3,86,000 ___________ 14. 3,86,000 ___________ Total compensation awardable Rs. 3,86,000 ___________ 14. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions:- 1. 80% to the wife of the deceased, 2. 20% to the daughter of the deceased. 15. The share of the minor children (if any), shall be disbursed to her natural guardian i.e. mother till her attaining majority.16. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court.17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Bali is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. Record be sent back forthwith.No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******