JUDGMENT 1. - Heard finally. 2. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 05/12/2008 passed by the MACT, Dholpur, in claim case No.35/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed granting compensation of Rs. 2,85,000/- in favour of the claimant. 3. The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that a claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal wherein it was pleaded that one Suresh, who was a vegetable vendor and aged about 22 years, while carrying vegetables in handcart for selling in Mandi, on the way to Dholpur nearing Reliance Petrol Pump at GT Road, met with an accident by offending vehicle Bolero Jeep bearing No.HR-16/E-6981, resulting in sustaining grievous injuries and ultimate death on the spot itself. It was alleged that driver of the vehicle, by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, hit the handcart as a result of which Suresh sustained severe injuries on head, nose and other parts of the body and the entire vegetable handcart (Thela) was destroyed. The accident took place at about 4.30 am in the morning of 29/12/2006 when he was crossing his handcart (Thela) at GT Road resulting in death of Suresh on the spot while the other person namely Ravi, who was accompanying Suresh, also sustained severe injuries. An FIR to this effect bearing No.405/2006 came to be lodged by one Pappu against the owner and driver of the vehicle u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304 IPC wherein, after investigation, the police filed challan before the concerned court. 4. While deciding the claim petition, it was observed by the Tribunal that driver (Mohan) of the offending vehicle, by driving the vehicle on the wrong side hit the handcart and thereafter the vehicle stopped after dashing with a "Sheesham" tree. The Tribunal, after elaborate discussion, has come to a categorical finding that the incident happened on account of driving the vehicle by its driver in rash and negligent manner. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation to the claimant-appellant and the compensation awarded by the ld. The Tribunal, after elaborate discussion, has come to a categorical finding that the incident happened on account of driving the vehicle by its driver in rash and negligent manner. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation to the claimant-appellant and the compensation awarded by the ld. Tribunal in the death case is on lower side and prayed for enhancement of the compensation and according to him just and fair compensation deserves to be awarded. He pleaded that the decessed was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month by way of selling vegetables and that has also been stated by his wife in her statements, however, the ld. Tribunal, without any evidence, has assessed income of the decessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month only merely on the basis that the decessed had no issue. He further contended that the multiplier is required to be adopted at 18 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 because the age of the decessed has been adopted at 22 years by the ld. Tribunal whereas the multiplier has been adopted of 17. He further contended that the future prospects has not been allowed which ought to have been allowed by the ld. Tribunal in the light of the judgment of 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 . He further contended that loss on account of consortium has been allowed only Rs. 5,000/- and funeral expenses has been allowed at Rs. 2,000/- which is too meagre and deserves to be appropriately enhanced. 6. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed income of the decessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month as no evidence was led by the claimant-appellant before the ld. Tribunal that the decessed was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further contended that in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2,000/- per month as no evidence was led by the claimant-appellant before the ld. Tribunal that the decessed was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further contended that in the light of the judgment of 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 , no future prospects is required to be allowed as there was no permanency of income or settled income of the decessed. He contended that so far as the multiplier is concerned, though admitted age before the Tribunal is 22 years but initially in the claim petition the age of the decessed was shown as 26 years and the Tribunal is not correct in adopting the age of 22 years and, therefore, pleaded for adopting the age of 26 years and on the basis of the same, the multiplier of 17 has correctly been applied. On other issues, he submitted that the Tribunal, after fair consideration, has allowed just and fair compensation which is not required to be enhanced. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material on record. 8. Though the Tribunal has discussed each and every issue and has scanned the material on record and it is accepted fact that on account of rash and negligent driving by the vehicle driver Mohan who was driving Bolero vehicle, the accident took place and on account of this unfortunate accident, Suresh (decessed) died on the spot and the other accompanying person Ravi also got seriously injured. Admittedly, FIR has been and challan has also been filed in proper court and on the basis of map and other evidence, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the decessed died on account of said accident. However, in my view, the claim allowed appears to be on the lower side for the reasons herein after. 9. In my view, though there is no evidence led by the claimant who happens to be widow of the decessed and who happens to be an illiterate lady. Therefore, in my view, merely because there was no issue (child), the income cannot be treated at Rs. 2,000/-. 9. In my view, though there is no evidence led by the claimant who happens to be widow of the decessed and who happens to be an illiterate lady. Therefore, in my view, merely because there was no issue (child), the income cannot be treated at Rs. 2,000/-. There is no co-relation of income viz-a-viz children and in my view, it would be appropriate, if the income is adopted at Rs. 3,000/- per month as the decessed would certainly be earning Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month. 10. 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. 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.) 12 8 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. Since the decessed was below 40 years of age, therefore, future prospects will be enhanced by 50% of the income. 11. As regards the multiplier, since the Tribunal has treated the age of the decessed at about 22 years, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier should have been applied at 18 in-stead of 17 as there is no challenge by the respondent-Insurance Company as regards the age of the decessed adopted by the Tribunal. As regards, loss of consortium, in my view, it is required to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- as against 5,000/- and at the same time, the funeral expenses are also required to be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- as against Rs. 2,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against loss of property and vegetable handcart (Thela)etc. to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, it is also liable to be enhanced and I deem it proper to enhance the same to Rs. 10,000/-. 5,000/- as against Rs. 2,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against loss of property and vegetable handcart (Thela)etc. to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, it is also liable to be enhanced and I deem it proper to enhance the same to Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the compensation is recomputed here under:- A Income = 3,000/- PM B 50% of above to be added as future prospects 3,000+1,500 = 4,500/- PM C 1/3 to be deducted as Personal Expenses 4,500-1,500 = = 3,000/- PM D Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied. 3,000X12X18 = = 6,48,000/- E Loss of consortium 20,000/- F Funeral expenses 5,000/- G Loss of property (Vegetable handcart) 10,000/- ___________ Total Compensation awarded as per this order L 6,83,000/- Less amount awarded by Tribunal vide order dated 5/12/2008 = L 2,85,000/- Balance payable/enhanced L 3,98,000/- 12. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 3,98,000/- as aforesaid is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 5.12.2008 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,98,000/- with interest @ 6% will be paid by the non-petitioners. The interest will however be allowed from the date of the award by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of Smt. Goma wife of the decessed in the Monthly Income Scheme(MIS) in the nearest Post Office for a period of five years where the monthly interest on the aforesaid MIS will be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant-appellant and she will be allowed to withdraw interest component on the credited amount of MIS on monthly basis and full amount on its maturity. However it is made clear that the claimant-appellant will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. The balance of the enhanced amount with interest would be disbursed to the appellant by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. The above exercise would be done within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. *******