JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Civil Cross Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants, claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that cross objection may kindly be allowed and award under appeal may kindly be enhanced to the extent amount claimed with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation with costs through-out. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed." 2. The appeal in this case, preferred by the Insurance Company, has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.01.2004, which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant challenged the impugned award on the ground that the driving license sought to be set up in this appeal was forged one, but in subsequent decision delivered by the learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Original Suit No.11/97 in which appellant was party, the learned District Judge in its judgment dated 18th March, 1999 held that the license in question was valid. The appellant did not challenge the decision of the learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur delivered in Civil Original Suit No.11/97 dated 18th March, 1999. Therefore, that finding has attained the finality against the appellant so far as the license in question is concerned and nothing survive after the final decision about the validity of the license in question. The respondent No.1 also submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and placed on record the certified copy of the judgment of the court of District Judge, Sawaimadhopur dated 18th March, 1999 delivered in Civil Original Suit No.11/97. In view of the above fact that the issue of license has already been decided against the appellant itself though in an another case and that decision has attained the finality, therefore, in view of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeals of the appellant are dismissed as withdrawn. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are required to be considered separately. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed and list these matters for deciding the crossobjection." 3. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are required to be considered separately. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed and list these matters for deciding the crossobjection." 3. An unfortunate accident had happened on 09.12.1993, when deceased Mukesh was driving Jeep bearing registration No.RJ06 C 569 and was going from Banera to Bhilwara, and at that time, the same met with an accident with Tanker bearing registration No. RNG 3000, which was being driven rashly and negligently, causing death of Mukesh. Deceased Mukesh was of the age of 20 years. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants, who are the mother and father of deceased Mukesh, produced the income proof, which is Exhibit-1 and shows income of Rs.2,500 per month, but the learned Tribunal has not believed the same on the ground that in cross examination of representatives of Shriji Travels, where the deceased was employed, has not verified his signatures on the certificate and have only said that it was signed by his brother Prakash. However, as per learned counsel for the claimants, the income certificate is not denied and the employer has been examined, and he has verified the fact of Mukesh being in his employment and certificate of wage being signed by his brother. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in reducing the income, for no good reason, to Rs.611/-. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the submissions. 6. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the claimants, but on examining of record, this Court is of the conclusion that the learned Tribunal should have safely gone with the version of the wages and rather than doubling the same for future prospect, the wage itself should have been taken to be Rs.2500 per month. 7. Thus, this Court in light of the noted fact of determination of wage and Exhibit-1, which is the wage certificate of Rs.2500 per month, is inclined to allow the appeal. 8. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is directed to recompute the compensation, while treating the monthly wage to be Rs.2500/- and adhering to the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 in the same factual matrix, which has already been arrived at in the impugned order. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 in the same factual matrix, which has already been arrived at in the impugned order. The said joint recomputation, as furnished by learned counsel for Insurance Company before this Court, reads as follows:- Age of the Deceased 20 years Multiplier 18 Future Prospects 40% Personal Expenses Deduction 1/2 Monthly Income of the Deceased Rs.2,500/- Monthly Income after adding Future Prospects Rs.3,500/- Monthly Income after deducting Personal Expenses Rs.1,750/- Yearly Income of the deceased Rs.21,000/- Total Income after applying Multiplier Rs.3,78,000/- Other Conventional Heads Rs.70,000/- Total Award Rs.4,48,000/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,11,400/- Enhanced Award. Rs.3,36,600/- 9. In view of the above and in light of the precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the enhanced award of Rs.3,36,600/- is granted which shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made. 10. The present misc. appeal is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.