JUDGMENT 1. - The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 29.4.2009 passed by the MACT, Shahpura, District, Jaipur in claim case No.93/2007, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim awarded a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/- as compensation to the claimant-appellants. 2. The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed by the wife, son and two daughters of deceased Prakash Chand before the Tribunal under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act stating therein that on 1.9.2006 at about 6:30 in the evening when deceased Prakash and driver Phoolchand Jat were going from Udaipur to Delhi in Truck bearing No. HR.47A.7965 then in between Gomti and Diver a Truck bearing No. R.J.14.1G.7586 came from Diver side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said truck and collided with the Truck bearing No. HR.47A.7965 due to which Prakash Chand sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 2.9.2006. The claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 34,60,000/-. 3. Against non-petitioner No. 1 (driver and owner of Truck bearing No. R.J.14.1G.7586) ex parte proceedings were drawn on 11.4.2007. The non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 6 while filing their reply to the claim petition contested the claim and stated that the information about the accident was not given to the Insurance Company and the driver was not having a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. Ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The name of non-petitioner No.3 was deleted from the array of the non-petitioners on 16.5.2007. The non-petitioners Nos. 4 & 5 did not file their reply. 4. The Tribunal after hearing arguments of the counsel for both the parties, framed as many as 5 issues including the issue of relief. The claimants in support of their claim got recorded statements of A.D.1 claimant Krishna Devi herself, A.D.2 Rameshwar, A.D. 3 Ramlal and also produced 16 documents in documentary evidence. The non-petitioners did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence and material available on record passed the impugned award granting a total compensation of Rs. 4,92,000/- under the different heads. Hence this appeal. 5. The non-petitioners did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence and material available on record passed the impugned award granting a total compensation of Rs. 4,92,000/- under the different heads. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the facts and material available on record and without appreciating the evidence in true sense while assessing the compensation. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month, whereas at the time of accident the deceased was working as agriculturist and Khalasi (assisting driver) and it was specific case of the claimants that he was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. He contended that on account of loss of love and affection towards children and loss of consortium, the amount awarded is low, which deserves to be enhanced. He contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not properly applying the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased who at the time of accident was aged 25 years, allowing deduction at ⅓rd on self expenses, when deduction ought to have been applied at ¼th looking to the number of dependents of the deceased being 5. He contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month and if he would have been alive then certainly he would have had a better future so also the family members, who have been deprived of his love and affection and care, but the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on future prospects and on other heads. The counsel relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. . Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance Company) submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (Insurance Company) submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award. She submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering each and every aspect of the matter passed the impugned award, which is just and reasonable and no interference is required by this Hon'ble Court in the impugned award. She also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 : 2013 (3) T.A.C. 369 and Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 . 7. I have heard the appeal finally and have considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel and perused the impugned award as well as material available on record. 8. The learned Tribunal while deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 has held that the burden to prove this issue was on claimants for which statement of Krishna Devi(A.D.1) was recorded, who stated that on 1.9.2006 at about 6:30 in the evening when deceased Prakash and driver Phoolchand Jat were going from Udaipur to Delhi in Truck bearing No. HR.47A.7965 then in between Gomti and Diver a Truck bearing No. R.J.14.1G.7586 came from Diver side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said truck and collided with the Truck bearing No. HR.47A.7965 due to which Prakash Chand sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 2.9.2006. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station and after investigation charge-sheet was presented before the court. Witnesses A.D.2 Rameshwar and A.D.3 Ramlal corroborated the statement of A.D.1 Krishna Devi. The learned Tribunal after perusing the documentary evidence available on record including notice U/sec.133 M.V. Act came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and on account of which Prakash Chand sustained injuries and died and it has been proved that non-petitioner No.1 was driving the offending vehicle for his benefit. Therefore, the Tribunal has decided both the issues in favour of the claimants. Similarly after elaborate discussion and considering the material available on record the Tribunal has decided all other issues in favour of the claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,92,000/- in favour of the claimants, which was to be paid by the non-petitioners Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 9. With reference to future prospects, while the counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , the counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . This Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008) decided on 4th March, 2014 has considered this issue at length after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (supra), Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr .(supra), Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) as also the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) , G. Dhanasekar v. M.D.,Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos.2008-09/2014 arising out of SLP Nos. 35565-35566 decided on 12.2.2014 , Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company reported in (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) and also earlier judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors. reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and this Court in the case of Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013 . reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and this Court in the case of Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013 . In my view, considering the above authorities, the future prospects is to be allowed both in case of a person who had permanency in employment may be Government or otherwise so also to be allowed in a case of self employed person with having sufficient stability and steadiness in source of income and can be allowed in the case, where a person may be earning on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis as they also increase their income/charges after some time as the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up. The Government also increases wages as also other emoluments on periodical basis, based on the index, accordingly it would be appropriate to allow future prospects as it can be said that there was steady income. 10. Now, scrutinising the facts of the instant case in the light of above proposition, it emerges that the deceased was working as Khalasi and agriculturist and earning Rs. 3000/- per month (as rightly held by the learned Tribunal) and his income would have been increased over the years and can be said to be steady income. Therefore, in the light of above facts and the judgments referred to supra, the future prospects is directed to be awarded. Since the deceased was aged about 25 years, therefore, he would be entitled to increase of 50% of the income. 11. After considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), in my view, though the Tribunal is justified in applying multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased, who was a married person, the multiplier as applied by the learned Tribunal at 18 is correct. 12. Since the deceased was a married person and number of dependent on him are five, therefore, the deduction is required to be worked out at ¼th instead of ⅓rd as applied by the Tribunal in view of the judgments supra. 13. 12. Since the deceased was a married person and number of dependent on him are five, therefore, the deduction is required to be worked out at ¼th instead of ⅓rd as applied by the Tribunal in view of the judgments supra. 13. 0In my view the amount allowed on account of loss of consortium to the wife, loss of love and affection towards children and loss of love, affection towards mother and amenities for life at Rs. 15,000/-, 15,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively is on the lower side and is enhanced to Rs. 25000/-, Rs. 30000/-, Rs. 20000/- and Rs. 20000/- respectively. On account of funeral expenses, the Tribunal has rightly allowed an amount of Rs. 5000/-. In view of the above, the claim is required to be modified in the light of the above findings. Accordingly, the amount awarded as per this appellate order would be as under:- (A) Income/Salary Rs. 3000/ P.M. (B) Future Prospects 50% Rs. 1500/- P.M. A+B Rs. 4500/- (C) Deduction on self expenses ¼th Rs. 1125/- P.M. Balance A+B-C Rs. 3375/- (D) Multiplier 3375X12X18=729000/- (E) Loss of consortium Rs. 25000/- (F) Loss of love and affection towards Children Rs. 30000/- (G) Loss of Love & affection towards mother Rs. 20000/- (H) Loss of amenities Rs. 20000/- (E) Funeral expenses Rs. 5000/- Total Rs. 829000/- Already awarded Rs. 4,92,000/- Balance amount to be awarded as per this order Rs. 337000/- 14. Accordingly, the claim is enhanced from Rs. 4,92,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal to Rs. 829000/-, as above. 15. Since the amount of Rs. 4,92,000/- has already been paid by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall make endeavour to pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs. 337000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award, which shall be calculated by the Tribunal on the enhanced claim. 16. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 29.4.2009 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 337000/- with interest will be paid by the non-petitioner including the Insurance Company. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 16. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 29.4.2009 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 337000/- with interest will be paid by the non-petitioner including the Insurance Company. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 55000/- of the enhanced amount equally along with interest rounded off to the nearest thousands in the separate account of claimants Nos.1 to 4 i.e. wife and children of the deceased in the Monthly Income Scheme(MIS) in the nearest Post Office for a period of five years. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be deposited in the account of the mother of the deceased in the MIS as aforesaid. Balance amount would be given to the appellant wife Smt. Krishna Devi by Banker Cheque/Bank Draft. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid and full amount on its maturity and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. In case of minor children, the same will be renewed from time to time till they become major. 17. The appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******