Navita Singh, J. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.2.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Ambala. Vide the said award, the Tribunal decided two petitions, i.e. MACT case No. 296 of 1992 and MACT case No. 105 of 1993. The first petition was filed by the present appellants for the death of Vipin Kumar Sahni. The appellants had filed the petition alleging that the deceased was going from Parwanoo to Narwana and was driving truck No. HRM-5154. At about 5.45 a.m. on 24.10.1992, when he crossed Chandimandir Railway Station, i.e. on Kalka-Ambala road, bus No. HYA-5278 came from the opposite side which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. In the process of overtaking the truck, the bus hit the side of the truck being driven by the deceased and the latter fell on the road and succumbed to his injuries there and then. Respondent No. 1 and some passengers of the bus also received injuries. The truck was badly damaged. Postmortem of Vipin Kumar Sahni was conducted at Civil Hospital, Kalka and a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 in Police Station Chandimandir. 2. Respondent No. 1 denied all the allegations of the appellants and stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the deceased himself. Similar defence was taken by respondent No. 2. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No. 3 pleaded that no information was received in its office regarding the accident and if there was any such accident, it had not taken place on account of the fault of respondent No. 1. The bus was being driven without a valid driving licence and other documents. Respondent No. 4-United India Insurance Company, who was the insurer of the truck, took a defence that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The truck was being driven by the deceased without a valid driving licence and it was, inter alia, pleaded that the answering respondent had been wrongly impleaded. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues in the petition filed by the present appellant:- 1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-Boinder Nath Bakshi (Driver)? OPP 2. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues in the petition filed by the present appellant:- 1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent-Boinder Nath Bakshi (Driver)? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent-Insurance Companies are not liable to pay any compensation on the pleas taken in the written statement? OPR 4. Relief. 4. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,84,000/- towards the death of Vipin Kumar Sahni and amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards damage of the truck. The appellants, dissatisfied with both the amounts, filed the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued first regarding inadequacy of the amount awarded for the death of Vipin Kumar Sahni. His contention was that the Tribunal arbitrarily took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- per month. The appellants had shown that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month and since he was a skilled person, being driver, he could very conveniently earn the amount pleaded. The wages of the skilled person was not less than Rs. 6000/- per month. Learned counsel then contended that the dependency was wrongly taken because the appellants were five persons dependent on the deceased and, therefore, his self dependency should have been deducted only to the extent of 1/10th. He also argued that nothing was awarded towards future prospects, loss of love and affection, consortium to the widow and funeral expenses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 882 stating that 30% of the income of the deceased was to be calculated towards future prospects as the accident in the present case occurred in 1992 and in Santosh Devi (supra) it had occurred in 1995 or before that. The date of accident in the reported case is not mentioned but the claim petition was filed in 1995, from where the learned counsel deduced that the accident took place either in the year in which the petition was filed or in 1994. The date of accident in the reported case is not mentioned but the claim petition was filed in 1995, from where the learned counsel deduced that the accident took place either in the year in which the petition was filed or in 1994. In Santosh Devi, 30% was added towards future prospects according to the age of the deceased and it was held that such amount was to be added if the deceased was between 40-50 years and nothing was to be given if the deceased was more than 50 years of age at the time of death. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if this Court was not inclined to grant future prospects to the extent of 50% as held in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403 because of the year of accident, then the principle laid down in Santosh Devi should be applied because the deceased was self employed and the year of accident in the reported case and in the present case was not far apart. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) argued that in the year 1992 the deceased could not have been earning Rs. 6000/- per month and, therefore, the income was rightly taken by the Tribunal. Also no proof was given by the appellants about the actual income of the deceased. He argued that the accident in the present case was much prior to the accident in Santosh Devi (supra) and, therefore, nothing was to be awarded towards future income as there was no such law at the relevant time. The Tribunal rightly did not award anything on that count. 8. It has already been observed that the accident in the instant case happened in 1992 and could have been in 1994 in Santosh Devi (supra) and the difference being small, it can safely be said that the rule evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi can be applied here as well. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, no fault can be found with the finding of the Tribunal because as far back as in 1992, a skilled labourer would not be earning more than Rs. 3000/- per month. According to the members in the immediate family, dependency was to be deducted to the extent of 1/4th and not 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. 3000/- per month. According to the members in the immediate family, dependency was to be deducted to the extent of 1/4th and not 1/3rd as was done by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, held that out of the income of the deceased which was Rs. 3000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum, taking out 1/4th as his own dependency, the remaining amount comes to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. As per Santosh Devi, 30% of actual income is to be added towards future income and, therefore, the total annual income will come to Rs. 37,800/-. The multiplier was rightly applied and also there is no objection to it from either side. The amount of compensation, therefore, comes to Rs. 6,04,800/-. No challenge to the award was made on any other count so far as the compensation regarding death of Vipin Kumar Sahni is there. In the grounds of appeal, the only point taken is about the income and dependency. 9. Regarding damage to the truck, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal applied thumb rule and awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards damage of the vehicle. He stated that the appellants had examined the surveyor Girish Sharma (PW 3), who had surveyed the vehicle and taken the photographs. Estimate was prepared by him and handed over to the brother of the deceased. He stated that the vehicle had gone into total loss, which was of Rs. 1,51,808.12 and Rs. 678/- was charged by the surveyor as his fee etc. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Tribunal wrongly held that since the witness mentioned that the market price of the truck, which was of 1965 model, was between Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,40,000/-, the appellants could not get more than the value of the vehicle. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the surveyor had only given the estimate and there was no evidence as to how much was actually spent on the repair of the truck. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal rightly concluded that there was no evidence on this point and that the damage to the vehicle could not be more than its actual value at that time. There was no evidence as to whether the truck was sold or repaired. Since the vehicle went in total loss, repair would not have been conducted. There was no evidence as to whether the truck was sold or repaired. Since the vehicle went in total loss, repair would not have been conducted. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 stated that even the salvage of the truck was with the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- could be deducted for salvage and in that case also, Rs. 1,30,000/- should have been awarded by the Tribunal. The arguments of the parties regarding salvage etc. being out of record, nothing on that count can be considered except the fact that learned counsel for the appellants did not deny that the salvage remained with the appellants. It is felt that the Tribunal did not apply thumb rule as stated by learned counsel for the appellants and rather based its conclusion on record and rightly held that the damage for the vehicle could not have been awarded more than its actual market value at that time. When the accident took place, the vehicle was already 27 years old. In the absence of proper evidence as to what had been actually done, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded at that time was more than sufficient. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed holding that the appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,04,800/- (including the amount awarded by the Tribunal) with interest as awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Vipin Kumar. Regarding enhancement of the amount awarded towards damage to the truck, the appeal is dismissed. The liability to pay the compensation shall be of respondent No. 3. __