JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The present appeal and the cross objection are preferred against the order dated 01.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 115/97. In SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2000 appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and by way of S.B. Civil Cross Objection No.24/2001 the respondents no.1 & 2 in the above said appeal have challenged the order dated 01.12.1999 on the ground that no liability can be fastened on them. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present case that on 17.03.1997 deceased Kanaram was traveling in truck no. RJ 04 G 0784 from Dhorimanna to Raiko Ki Dhani, the truck in which deceased Kanaram was traveling overturned near Sanawara (35 kms. from Barmer). Due to this accident, Sh. Kanaram who was in this truck sustained injuries and ultimately died. In these circumstances, the appellants preferred a claim petition before the learned MACT, Barmer for awarding compensation on various grounds. 3. In reply to the claim petition while denying the facts of the claim petition, it was submitted by the respondents that the driver was not having a valid licence and since the condition of the policy was being violated by the driver of the truck, therefore, respondent no.3 i.e. Insurance Company is not liable. It was further stated that since the deceased Kanaram was traveling as a passenger in this vehicle, therefore, he is not entitled for any claim from the Insurance Company. Further, the Insurance Company relying on the provisions of Sections 147 & 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have denied any liability. Further, the Insurance Company has also prayed for returning the amount deposited by them for no fault liability under Section 140 of the MV Act. 4. Learned tribunal framed nine issues in the matter and, after examining the evidence and documents, the learned MACT, Barmer disposed of the claim petition of the claimants vide order dated 01.12.1999 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-. The appellants in the present case submits that future prospects have not been considered by the learned MACT Court while awarding the compensation vide order dated 01.12.1999. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get computed the future prospects while calculating the compensation due to the appellants. The appellants in the present case submits that future prospects have not been considered by the learned MACT Court while awarding the compensation vide order dated 01.12.1999. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get computed the future prospects while calculating the compensation due to the appellants. According to learned counsel for the appellants if 50% of the amount computed as wages by the MACT Court is taken into consideration and 1/3 amount having been spent on the deceased himself then by using the multiplier of 17 the amount which comes for consideration towards the future prospects is 600X12X17=1,22,400/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that an amount of Rs. 1,22,400/- may be enhanced towards future prospects. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the count of love, affection and last rites only Rs.5,000/- & Rs.2,000/- respectively has been awarded which is far to less. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Varun Gupta submits that the learned MACT Court has rightly computed the income whatever amount has been awarded is absolutely just and proper. 7. Sh. Varun Gupta learned counsel for the owner and driver i.e. respondents no. 1 & 2 further submits that the liability has been wrongly fastened on driver and the owner as deceased was traveling in the truck as a passenger. The factum of the deceased not traveling as passenger is not proved by the Insurance Company, therefore, this liability of compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance Company and not on the respondents no. 1 & 2. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The findings recorded while deciding the issue no.2 the factum of future prospects have not been considered. It has come on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 1800/- per month and, therefore, while computing the income an amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- has been awarded. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1631 reads as under:- "In the present case the deceased was 39 years of age. His income was Rs 1032 per month. Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. Susamma Thomas & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1631 reads as under:- "In the present case the deceased was 39 years of age. His income was Rs 1032 per month. Of course, the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertainment 7 (1961) 3 All ER 323 : (1962) 2 QB 210 (CA) 8 (1981) 1 All ER 578 : (1981) 2 WLR 278 9 1962 MPLJ 426: 1983 ACJ 221 (MP) of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. The deceased person in this case had a more or less stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of Rs 1032 per month. We think, having regard to the prospects of advancement in the future career, respecting which there is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a higher estimate of monthly income at Rs 2000 as the gross income. From this has to be deducted his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependents. This loss of dependency should capitalize with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can take about Rs 1400 per month or Rs 17,000 per year as the loss of dependency and if capitalized on a multiplier of 12, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased, the compensation would work out to (Rs 17,000 x 12 Rs 2,03,000) to which is added the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of Rs 15,000." (2) Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104 , it has been held as under on the aspect of future prospects:- "In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted." (3) Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., 2015 (3) RLW 2021 (SC) reads as under:- "As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. To quote: Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." The deceased being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the required addition." 10. Therefore, I am of the view that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount in respect of the future prospects to the tune of Rs. 1,22,400/- is liable to be awarded to the claimant. It is a common knowledge that if a person is working even on daily wages will have at least reasonable chance to progress or at least enhance his working capacity by virtue of experience. The possibility of improvement in working of a man cannot be ruled out. Therefore, having not taken into consideration 'future prospects', the learned MACT Court has erred in not adding the income on that count. 11. As far as the amount which has been awarded for love, affection and last rites, it appears reasonable and called for no interference. 12. That as far as the finding of the learned MACT Court with respect to the issue nos. 3 & 6 is concerned, the deceased was traveling in the truck as passenger or otherwise is concerned it has categorically come on record on the basis of evidence recorded by the learned MACT that the petitioner was traveling as passenger and was in no way connected with the material on board the truck or the truck itself. 13. For ready reference the finding recorded by the learned MACT Court on issue nos. 13. For ready reference the finding recorded by the learned MACT Court on issue nos. 3 & 6 conclusively holding that the Insurance Company in view of the provisions of MV Act is not liable to pay the compensation reads as under:- **mi;qZDr u;s o iqjkus vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk rqyukRed v/;u djus ij ;g ckr Li"V gksrh gS fd iqjkus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 95&ch esa 'kCn including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle tksM+dj u;k izko/kku /kkjk 147&ch cuk;k x;k gSA vr% vc /kkjk 147&ch ds vuqlkj chek daiuh dk nkf;Ro ml O;fDr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh mRiUu gksrk gS tks O;fDr okgu esa ys tkus okys eky dk ekfyd vFkok mldk vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k gksA og izko/kku iqjkus vf/kfu;e esa ugha FkkA vr% mi;qZDr :fyax dk ykHk chek daiuh dks mu izdj.kksa esa ugha fey ldrk ftu izdj.kksa esa dksbZ eky Lokeh vFkok mldk vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k eky ds lkFk eky okgu esa ;k=k dj jgk gksA blds vykok vU; fcUnqvksa ij pwafd u;s vf/kfu;e o iqjkus vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa esa dksbZ varj ugha gS] vr% vU; fcUnqvksa ij mi;qZDr :fyax u;s ,e0oh0 ,DV ds izdj.kksa ij Hkh ykxw gksxhA orZeku izdj.k esa e`rd fdjk;k nsdj eky okgu esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk o mi;qZDr :fyax esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj ,sls O;fDr ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ ds fy;s chek daiuh dk mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gS o bl laca/k esa u;s o iqjkus ,e0oh0 ,DV ds izko/kkuksa esa dksbZ varj ugha gksus ls ;g :fyax orZeku izdj.k esa iw.kZr;k ykxw gksrh gSA** 14. The learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to satisfy the Court to the extent that the deceased was traveling in the truck as a person who is authorised on behalf of the owner of truck or was an authorised representative of goods on board and since he was traveling as a passenger in this truck, in view of the provisions and the law laid down, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 15. Resultantly, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2000 is partly allowed. 15. Resultantly, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2000 is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT Court dated 1.12.1999 is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,22,400/- in addition to the compensation which has already been awarded and as far as the Civil Cross Objection No. 24/2001 filed by Chaman Lal is concerned, the same is devoid of force and the same is dismissed. Appeal No. 256/2000 partly allowed and Cross-objection dismissed.