ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved against the judgment & award dated 01.12.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar, District – Hanumangarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,39,500/- to the claimants and has directed that out of Rs.50,000/- towards damage to the Jeep, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- only and rest of the amount shall be paid by the appellants – Krishna (owner). 2. While S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.163/1999 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.59/1999 has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle aggrieved against restricting the liability of the Insurance Company qua the damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.2,000/- only and the quantum of compensation towards the damage to the vehicle. 3. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants Smt. Bimla and others with the averments that their husband/father/son Jagdish, was travelling in Jeep No.DL 2 CC 4999, when the offending Truck collided with the said Jeep, resulting in grievous injuries to Jagdish, to which, he succumbed. It is claimed that Jagdish was involved in operating a Tailoring Shop and besides that, was also managing a Jeep and from the said two vocations, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Based on the said averments, a compensation of Rs.50,52,000/- was claimed and a further sum of Rs.70,000/- towards damage to the Jeep was also claimed. 4. The application was opposed by the non-claimants, wherein the income of the deceased was disputed and the assessment of the damage to the vehicle was also questioned. 5. The Insurance Company also opposed the averments made in the application. It was claimed that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of valid driving licence and had no permit to operate the said vehicle. Further submissions were made that liability of the Insurance Company towards the damage to third party property was limited. 6. The trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined including Surveyor, who had surveyed the vehicle for the quantum of damage and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined. 7. Further submissions were made that liability of the Insurance Company towards the damage to third party property was limited. 6. The trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined including Surveyor, who had surveyed the vehicle for the quantum of damage and on behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined. 7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in the accident. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal discarded the evidence led by the parties to show that the deceased was involved in the Tailoring business; qua the income arising from the Jeep, it came to the conclusion that either the same was only occasional and in case, the same was regular, the same was being received even now. Regarding certain other evidence, which was led by the claimants regarding the income from Generator, it was found that the same was not claimed in the application for compensation. Based on the assessment by the Tribunal, it restricted the amount of compensation to the extent of provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') at Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- each to the children and the mother of the deceased towards loss of love & affection, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate was also awarded. Regarding the loss caused to the Jeep, the Tribunal based on the Survey Report (Ex.-13) assessed the damage at Rs.50,000/-. While assessing the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 147(2)(b) of the Act, the liability was limited to Rs.6,000/- qua the damage to third party property and directed that a sum of Rs.44,000/- out of damage to the Jeep be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It was argued that from the evidence led by the parties, it was established that the deceased was involved in business of running a Tailoring Shop and in view thereof, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were only entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- lump sum. Further submissions were made that the evidence available on record clearly indicated that the deceased was 35 years of age only, was not sitting idle and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.: (1994) 2 SCC 176 , at least the minimum wages at the relevant time should have been taken into consideration. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company qua damage to the Jeep would be restricted to Rs.6,000/- only, inasmuch as, a bare look at the Policy clearly indicates that the same does not indicate that the liability is limited. Further submissions were made that in absence of any material available on record, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the damage to the Jeep. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record, the claimants have failed to establish any regular income of the deceased and in absence whereof, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- based on the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. Further submissions were made that a look at the Policy (Ex.-1A) clearly brings out that no additional premium was charged by the Insurance Company extending its liability beyond the statutory liability under Section 147(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the liability to a sum of Rs.6,000/- only. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement is concerned, a bare look at the material available on record, clearly indicates that the deceased was aged 35 years and all the witnesses have in one voice indicated that the deceased was involved in Tailoring business. However, none of them was able to place on record material pertaining to the said business being conducted by him. 13. Looking to the nature of business i.e. the work of Tailoring being conducted by the deceased, it may not have been possible to produce any concrete evidence in documentary form before the Tribunal, it is not in dispute the deceased was survived by his wife and four children aged 4 to 10 years, the result of finding recorded by the Tribunal would be that the deceased essentially was not doing anything, which finding appears to be without any basis, the deceased was looking after a family of seven persons including himself and, therefore, the finding to this extent, cannot be sustained. 14. So far as the material available on record is concerned, as the income of the deceased is not proved on record, taking the minimum wages at the relevant time i.e. on 30.12.1995, the date of accident, assessment of income at Rs.884/- per month can be made. 15. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants regarding grant of future prospects is concerned, in view of the evidence as available on record indicating lack of any sufficient evidence to fall back upon, the grant of future prospects in the circumstances of the case does not appear to be justified. 16. Out of the said income, deducting ¼th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying a multiplier of 15 based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the amount of compensation would be Rs.884 X 12 X 16 = Rs.1,69,728 – Rs.42,432 (deduction ¼th towards personal expenses) = 1,27,296/-. The award of amount towards loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love & affection to the children and mother even at the relevant time appears to be on the lower side and, therefore, the same also deserves to be enhanced, whereby the wife of the deceased would be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and the children and mother would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love & affection. 17. In view thereof, towards loss of income, loss of consortium and loss of love & affection, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,97,296/- instead of Rs.85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 18. So far as the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle Truck is concerned qua the quantum of compensation towards loss to the Jeep as well as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss caused to the Jeep. While leading evidence, the Surveyor of the Jeep was examined as AW-5, who proved his Report (Ex.-13), wherein the loss caused to the Jeep was indicated at Rs.47,550/- and the Tribunal after adding further sum towards transportation of the vehicle, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 19. A look at the statement of AW-5 Surveyor and its cross-examination indicates that the claimants have not been able to shake the evidence of the said witness and, therefore, the quantum of compensation towards loss to the Jeep does not call for any interference. 20. Coming to the liability of the Insurance Company, a bare look at the provisions of Section 147(2)(b) of the Act indicates that the same provides for the limit of liability of the Insurance Company "in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of Rs.6,000/-". 21. The submission of counsel for the appellant-owner is that the Policy (Ex.-1A) does not indicate the limit liability. A bare perusal of the Policy (Ex.-1A) indicates that the Insurance Company has charged a sum of Rs.3,147/- towards own damage and a sum of Rs.1,275/- towards liability, as premium. 21. The submission of counsel for the appellant-owner is that the Policy (Ex.-1A) does not indicate the limit liability. A bare perusal of the Policy (Ex.-1A) indicates that the Insurance Company has charged a sum of Rs.3,147/- towards own damage and a sum of Rs.1,275/- towards liability, as premium. The further bifurcation towards the premium for 'liability' indicates that for basic premium amount of Rs.1,245/- has been charged and, thereafter, an addition of Rs.30/- has been made towards liability to paid driver/cleaner and in so far as the column pertaining to "increased TP property damage limits under Section 1(ii)" is concerned, the same is lying blank. 22. In view thereof, it is established from the said Policy that in so far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 147(2)(b) of the Act, the same would be restricted to Rs.6,000/- only and the Tribunal did not commit any error in this regard in directing that a sum of Rs.44,000/- would be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. 23. In view of the above discussion, while the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.59/1999 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is dismissed, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.163/1999 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,12,296/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application i.e. 16.01.1996 to the date of actual payment. 24. The amount of enhanced compensation along with interest would be paid in the manner that a sum of Rs.10,000/- along with interest each would be paid to the children and mother of the deceased and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.62,296/- along with interest shall paid to the wife of the deceased Smt. Bimla. The amount be paid in the saving bank account of the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment by the respondent-Insurance Company. 25. The amount of Rs.22,000/-, which was stayed by this Court in the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.59/1999 filed by the owner along with interest would also be paid in terms of the award within a period of six weeks. Appeal Nos. 591/1999 dismissed, 163/1999 Partly Allowed