Judgment : 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants Smt. Shanti Devi & others for enhancement of the award dated 5.8.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge (FT) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur) in Claim case No.285/2005 (565/2003). 2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. Respondent Insurance Company has strongly opposed the appeal. 3. Appellants rely upon following rulings:- (1) Kalpanaraj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Coporation reported in 2014 ACJ 1388 (S.C.) Two Judges Bench 4. Income Tax return of immediate preceding year was held sufficient for determination of income of the deceased. (2) Meena Saboo (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhagwan Singh & Anr. Reported in 2011 R.A.R. 123(Raj.) 5. In this case also income at the time of death was held relevant and income of previous years was not considered for calculation of claim. (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alpa Rajesh Shah & Ors. reported in MACD 2014(3) (Bom.) 1413 6. In this case also income at the time of death and not the average income of past five years was held relevant for calculation of the award amount. (4) Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.) - Three Judges Bench 7. In this case, minimum Rs. One Lac towards loss of consortium and Rs.25000/- for funeral expenses were advised to be paid while passing award in motor accident claim. This view was followed by the Apex Court in 2014 A.C.J 1388 also. (5) Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) (decided by two Judges Bench on 23.4.2012) 8. In this case, formula for increase of income considering future prospects adopted for persons in permanent Job in Sarla Verma case reported in 2009 ACJ (SC) 1298 was held not applicable to persons who were self employed or were engaged on fixed wages. 9. Respondent Insurance Company has relied upon following rulings:- (1) Lajpat Rai Madan Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.3.2010 in CMA No.566/2007 (2) Kalpna Raj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Coporation, 2014 ACJ (S.C.) 1388 (3) Rani Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 1605 (S.C.) 10. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12.3.2010 in CMA No.566/2007 (2) Kalpna Raj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Coporation, 2014 ACJ (S.C.) 1388 (3) Rani Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 1605 (S.C.) 10. In the aforesaid rulings formula of average income was held applicable in the circumstances of peculiar cases for calculation of income of deceased for determination of motor accident claim. (4) Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. Reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (decided on 2.4.2013 by Three Judges (5) Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) (Two Judges Bench) 11. In above mentioned cases, it was held that in cases, where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will only be considered for calculation of compensation. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and in very exceptional cases only. 12. The Tribunal had passed an award of Rs.6,47,000/- which was distributed in following heads by it; (1) Loss of income due to death of Ramji Lal 5,48,500/- (2) Funeral expenses & transport expenses 7,000/- (3) Expenses of medical treatment 19,730/- (4) Expenses of attendant and transport expenses 1,600/- (5) Loss of estate, love & affection & loss of consortium 70,000/- It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that income of deceased was as follows:- Assessment Year 2001-02 Rs.70,000/- 13. But the Tribunal has taken average income of three assessment years, which were as follows:- Assessment Year 1999-2000 Rs.58,665/- Assessment Year 2000-01 Rs.49,000/- Assessment Year 2001-02 Rs.70,000/- 14. It is not in dispute that the income tax return for the year 2001-02 had already been filed by the deceased in his life time and so the average income should not be the basis of calculation and rather the claim should have been decided on the basis of income of the deceased as per Assessment Year 2001- 02 only, which was Rs.70,000/- per annum. Claim will have to be recalculated due to this error of the Tribunal. Claim will have to be recalculated due to this error of the Tribunal. At the time of death, Ramji Lal was 48 years of age and so multiplier of 13 was rightly applied by the Tribunal as per dictum of Sarla Verma case of the Apex Court. 15. In the circumstances of the case, since deceased was not a salaried employee so benefit of future prospects are not supposed to be given to the claimants as per dictum of Sarla Verma, Santosh Devi and Reshma Kumari cases of the Apex Court (supra). 16. Rs.70,000/- were awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love & affection. I am inclined to increase this amount to Rs.1,20,000/- in place of Rs.70,000/- in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajveer Singh reported in MACD 2013 SC 186. 17. Compensation towards funeral expenses and transport expenses also deserve to be enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.25,000/- as per the aforesaid ruling. 18. After deduction of the Income Tax of Rs.3000/- as paid by him in the year 2001-02, his annual income remains Rs.67,000/- only. 19. Thus, compensation towards loss of pay will be counted as follows:- (1) Loss of Income 67,000X3/4X13=6,53,250/- (2) Funeral expenses &  transport expenses 25,000/- (3) Medical expenses 19,730/- (4) Attendant & transport expenses 1600/- (5) Loss of estate, love & affection & consortium 1,20,000/- Total 8,19,580/- 20. Thus, the appeal of these appellants deserves partly acceptance and is allowed accordinatly and the award of Rs.6,47,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/-. Enhanced amount comes to Rs.1,73,000/-. This enhanced amount of Rs.1,73,000/- will be payable by the Insurance Company along with 6% simple annual interest on it from the date of claim (25.11.2004) till payment to the claimants. This enhanced amount should be kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of one year in the name of claimant No.1 Smt. Shanti Devi, who is widow of deceased Ramji Lal Kumawat. After one year she will be entitled to encash this FDR in welfare of all of the claimants. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal immediately along with record of the Tribunal.