JUDGMENT : Since both the above captioned appeals are directed against the awards passed in the petitions pertaining to same accident, they were being taken up together for hearing with the consent of learned counsel representing the parties and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. 2. Instant appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), lay challenge to Awards dated 31.12.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla-(III) in case RBT Nos.24-S/2 of 2017 and 25-S/2 of 2017, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petitions, having been filed by the respondent No.1- claimant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’), held the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.14,98,000/- & Rs.6,30,028/- respectively with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petitions till their realization, to the claimant, on account of death of her son Sanjay Kumar and husband Shri Laiq Ram, who unfortunately died in a road accident. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that two petitions under Section 166 of the Act came to be instituted on behalf of the claimant, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.35 lac, each,, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of her son Sanjay Kumar and husband Laiq Ram. 4. Claimant claimed in the claim petitions that on 3rd July, 2013, her son Sanjay Kumar alongwith his father Laiq Ram was coming from Kharapathar to his native village Tau in a vehicle bearing registration No.HP- 63-2943 (Bolero Pickup) being driven by its driver namely, Surjan Singh. As per claimant, deceased Sanjay Kumar and his father had gone to Kharapathar for purchase of kariyana items and had hired the ill fated vehicle from Kharapathar to Tau. When the vehicle reached at Versta Kainchi, the same went out of the road as a consequence of which driver namely, Surjan Singh as well as his son Sanjay and husband Laiq Ram sustained multiple injuries on their persons and died on the spot. 5. Claimant claimed that the age of her deceased son was 31 years and that of her deceased husband was 65 years at the time of accident and they were earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month respectively from their agricultural pursuits. 5. Claimant claimed that the age of her deceased son was 31 years and that of her deceased husband was 65 years at the time of accident and they were earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month respectively from their agricultural pursuits. Besides above, claimant also claimed that this accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-63-2943, namely, Surjan Singh and as such, she may be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.35 lacs each alongwith interest @ 12% per annum each from the date of accident till its realization. 6. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimant came to be resisted on behalf of respondent No.1 Mr.Ashish, owner of the ill-fated vehicle, on the ground of maintainability. He claimed that since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company at the time of accident, as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant, rather, same has to be paid by the Insurance Company. On merits, respondent No.1 admitted the factum with regard to accident, but denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. He claimed that there was steep decline on the spot and all of a sudden, some mechanical defect occurred in the vehicle, as a consequence of which, vehicle fell in deep gorge. 7. Appellant Insurance Company filed separate replies to both the claim petitions raising preliminary objection qua maintainability. Appellant-Insurance Company averred in the reply that deceased were traveling in the illfated vehicle as gratuitous passengers and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Appellant Insurance Company claimed that the vehicle in question was being plied in infraction of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being plied without valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit, therefore, it cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. On merits, appellant Insurance Company denied that the deceased were orchardists or experts in pruning, grading, packing etc. and were earning Rs.40,000 and Rs.25,000/- per month, respectively. 8. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, as have been taken note hereinabove, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. On merits, appellant Insurance Company denied that the deceased were orchardists or experts in pruning, grading, packing etc. and were earning Rs.40,000 and Rs.25,000/- per month, respectively. 8. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, as have been taken note hereinabove, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Sanjay Kumar deceased died in a motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of Surjan Singh as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle as a gratuitous passenger as alleged OPR-2. 4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of the mandatory terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-2. 5. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle? OPR- 2. 6. Whether the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-2 7. Whether the petition is collusive as alleged? OPR-2. 8. Relief.” 9. On the basis of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, impugned Awards came to be passed by the learned Tribunal below saddling the Insurance Company with the liability to pay compensation of Rs.14,98,000/- and Rs.6,30,028/- respectively alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant, being insurer of the vehicle. In the aforesaid background, appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned awards and dismiss the claim petitions filed by the claimant. 10. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the the evidence led on record by respective parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petitions, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the impugned awards in the instant proceedings has been laid on following grounds:- 1. Once it stood proved from the FIR that no Kariana goods/apple boxes were being transported in the vehicle, learned Tribunal below could not have returned finding that the deceased were traveling as owners of the goods in the vehicle. 2. Once it stood proved from the FIR that no Kariana goods/apple boxes were being transported in the vehicle, learned Tribunal below could not have returned finding that the deceased were traveling as owners of the goods in the vehicle. 2. Once, it stood duly established on record that the deceased Sanjay and Laiq Ram were traveling as gratuitous passengers in the ill-fated vehicle at the time of the accident, Tribunal below could not have held the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. 3. Tribunal below has erred in answering issue No.5 in negative, observing that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence. 4. Tribunal below has wrongly assessed the monthly income of both the deceased as Rs.10,000/- for assessing the compensation, when no oral or documentary evidence came to be led on record of the case by the claimant. 11. Shri Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company, vehemently argued that since the contents of FIR Ex.PW-4/A were not proved by the claimant, by leading cogent and convincing evidence and there was no mention with regard to goods, if any, being transported in the vehicle at the time of accident, goods were being transported/carried in the ill-fated vehicle. Learned counsel further argued that since the claimant did not adduce any documentary proof that the goods were being carried by the deceased in the ill-fated vehicle, Tribunal below, merely on the basis of statement of PW-6 Pradeep Kumar, that the deceased Sanjay and his father had purchased Kariana items and had hired the ill-fated vehicle, ought not have proceeded to hold that the deceased were traveling in the ill-fated as owners of the goods and not as ‘gratuitous passengers’. 12. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company, vehemently argued that once RW-1 Surender Sharma, Criminal Ahalmad, produced the original criminal case file of case titled: State vs. Surjan Singh and stated on the basis of the record that the driving license of the driver was not available on the record and Section 181 of the MV Act was also incorporated in the challan, the Tribunal below could not have returned the finding that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. 13. 13. Lastly, Mr.Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company, argued that in the case at hand, though the claimant claimed that her son & husband, at the time of accident, were earning Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month, respectively, from agricultural pursuits, but since she failed to produce documentary evidence in this behalf, Tribunal below could not have assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, by applying guesswork, rather in that situation, learned Tribunal below ought to have assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages payable to the workmen, as per the Minimum Wages Act prevalent in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2013, which was Rs.150/- per day and the monthly income ought to have been assessed as Rs.4500/-. 14. Mr.B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-claimant, while supporting the impugned awards, argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the awards and the same are based upon the proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record of the case. He further argued that bare perusal of statement of PW-6 Pradeep Kumar clearly reveals that at the time of accident deceased had hired the offending vehicle for transporting Kariana items purchased by them from the shop of PW-6 Pradeep Kumar. While inviting attention of this Court to the statement of Shri Ashish Sharma, RW-2 Mr. Chauhan, learned senior counsel argued that at the time of alleged accident deceased were traveling in the vehicle as owners of goods. While refuting the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to validity of licence, Mr.Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, argued that though according to information supplied by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland, the licenses issued in booklet or manual format are not genuine, but since the Insurance Company failed to lead any positive evidence to establish that the driving licence Ex.RW-2/A was fake and as such, learned Tribunal below has rightly held the driving licence Ex.RW-2/A of the deceased driver to be genuine and valid. 15. Lastly, Mr.Chauhan, argued that it cannot be said that the claimant failed to establish on record that at the time of accident, deceased were not earning Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month on account of their agricultural pursuits, because in the statement of claimant Shakuntla Devi, she deposed that at the time of accident, deceased were working as grader, packer and pruner and were earning Rs.40,000/- & Rs.25,000/- per month. Mr.Chauhan further argued that even if it is presumed that the claimant was unable to prove the income of the deceased, no fault, if any, can be found with the income of the deceased assessed by learned Tribunal below @ Rs.10,000/- per month. 16. PW-1 Shakuntala Devi deposed by way of an affidavit Ex.PW-1/A that the driver of the vehicle in question lost control over the vehicle, as a consequence of which, the same went out of the road. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that her testimony could be shattered by the opposite party. 17. PW-2 Ranvir also deposed on oath that the accident occurred because of rash driving of the Pickup by its driver. This witness specifically denied the suggestion put to him by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the accident had taken place due to some mechanical defect. 18. PW-4 Constable Praveen Kumar, while proving FIR Ex.PW-4/A, categorically deposed that the accident caused due to negligence of driver Surjan Singh. 19. In view of aforesaid evidence, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal below had erred in holding that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver. Contents of FIR stood duly proved by PW-4 Constable Praveen Kumar. Otherwise also, no suggestion, if any, ever was put forth to him with regard to correctness of the contents of the FIR. 20. Mr.Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company, argued that since there is no mention in the FIR that the goods were being transported in the vehicle at the time of accident and no seizure memo was prepared with regard to the same, claim of the claimant that Kariana items were being transported in the ill fated vehicle by the deceased, deserves outright rejection, being contrary to the record. However, this Court is not at all impressed with the aforesaid submission made by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company because, the contents of the FIR cannot be relied upon, especially when the person, who lodged the FIR, never stepped into witness box to prove its contents. However, this Court is not at all impressed with the aforesaid submission made by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company because, the contents of the FIR cannot be relied upon, especially when the person, who lodged the FIR, never stepped into witness box to prove its contents. In the case at hand, though PW-4 Constable Praveen Kumar proved the contents of the FIR Ex.PW-4/A in the Court, but omission, if any, on his part to make deposition with regard to Kariana items being transported in the ill-fated vehicle at the time of accident, cannot be made a ground to reject the claim of the claimant, especially when complainant Sub- Inspector Gauri Dutt Sharma, at whose instance, FIR came to be registered, was never examined by the appellant Insurance Company to prove factum with regard to non-transportation, if any, of Kariana items at the time of the alleged accident by the deceased. Moreover, careful perusal of FIR clearly reveals that SI Gauri Dutt, after having received information with regard to the accident, rushed to Chaura Ground, Village Tau and found three dead bodies there. As per contents of the FIR, people of the locality before reaching the police, had already lifted the dead bodies from the gorge and had kept the same in the Chaura Ground. In the FIR, complainant has reported that on 23.7.2013 at about 6.00 – 7.00 P.M., when ill fated vehicle reached Versta Kainchi, it fell into the gorge and residents of the village brought their dead bodies during night time to village Tau. Though this witness stated that the width of curve was found 40 feet, but it nowhere suggests that he had gone down in the gorge, as such, there was no occasion for him to state anything with regard to the transportation of goods in the ill-fated vehicle at the time of alleged accident. 21. Mr.Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company, placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled: National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rattani and Others, (2009)2 SCC 75 and judgment dated 25.04.2019 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.288 of 2018, titled as: Shashi Kumar & Another vs. Smt. Jhullo & Another, Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) Supp. 369 to state that once claimants relied upon FIR, Tribunal below ought to have read the same in its entirety and once factum with regard to transportation of goods was not recorded, it could not have returned finding that at the time of accident, deceased were traveling in the vehicle, as owners of the goods. 22. Bare perusal of aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court clearly reveals that ordinarily an allegation made in the first information report would not be per se admissible in evidence but if the allegation made in the first information report is made part of the claim petition, court is bound to take cognizance of the same. In the case at hand, though the claimant, with a view to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of driver, had relied upon FIR, but if the same is read in its entirety, it nowhere supports the case of the Insurance Company. It is quite apparent from the contents of the FIR that complainant, had no occasion, if any, to verify the factum with regard to transportation of the goods in the ill fated vehicle at the time of accident, rather he only saw the dead bodies kept in Chaura ground, after having received information with regard to the accident. 23. On the top of everything, factum with regard to non-transportation, if any, of goods in ill fated vehicle could only be proved by examining complainant Sub Inspector Gauri Dutt, who has not been examined in the case at hand, no fault, if any, can be found with the findings returned by learned Tribunal below. 24. Reliance is placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Daleep Singh and another, 2019(1) Him L.R.(HC) 258, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:- “2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer, has, contended with much vigourbefore this Court (i) that, with, at the relevant time, the, claimant hence traveling as, a, gratuitous passenger, in, the offending vehicle, whereas, the contract of insurance borne in Ex. Rx, prohibiting, the carrying, upon, the offending vehicle, and, in the afore capacity, rather the claimant, (ii) thereupon, with, hence, evident fundamental breach of contract of insurance, borne in Ex.Rx, rather erupting, (iii) thereupon, the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer being amenable for reversal. Rx, prohibiting, the carrying, upon, the offending vehicle, and, in the afore capacity, rather the claimant, (ii) thereupon, with, hence, evident fundamental breach of contract of insurance, borne in Ex.Rx, rather erupting, (iii) thereupon, the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer being amenable for reversal. However, the aforesaid espousal is not borne, by the apt evidence existing on record, given (a) the claimant while appearing as PW-6, hence testifying, qua, at the relevant time, his trudging, at the relevant site of occurrence, and, thereat, the offending while, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by respondent No.1 (before the tribunal), its striking him; (b) further his testifying that in sequel thereto, his sustaining injuries, on his person; (c) the afore echoingborne in his testification, qua the ill fated occurrence, though, is contrary to the one, borne in the FIR, embodied in Ex.PW2/A, lodged at the instance of Narender Kumar, wherein, rather echoings hence supportive of the afore espousal reared, before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, hence, exist; (d) yet no reliance can be meted to the recitals borne in Ex.PW2/A, given, the informant thereof, one Narender Kumar not stepping into the witness box, for, hence proving the afore echoings, borne in Ex.PW2/A. The effect thereof being, the uneroded testification of the claimant, carrying therein obviously contra therewith recitals, as, borne in Ex.PW2/A, getting hence cogently proven. The corollary of the aforesaid inference, is, qua the claimant proving, that, his at the relevant time, hence, not traveling as, a, gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, rather his proving qua at the relevant time, his rather trudging on the road. Further, sequel thereof, is that the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, not being ingrained with any gross fallibility.” 25. Claimant, in her statement categorically deposed that the deceased had gone to Kharapathar to purchase Kariana items and had hired the ill fated vehicle for its transportation. Aforesaid version of the claimant further came to be corroborated by PW-6 Pradeep Kuamr, who deposed that on 23.7.2013 at about 2-3 P.M., Laiq Ram and his son Sanjay bought certain Kariana articles as well as packing material for apples, which they loaded in Pickup Jeep of Surjan Ranta and took the same to Tau village. Aforesaid version of the claimant further came to be corroborated by PW-6 Pradeep Kuamr, who deposed that on 23.7.2013 at about 2-3 P.M., Laiq Ram and his son Sanjay bought certain Kariana articles as well as packing material for apples, which they loaded in Pickup Jeep of Surjan Ranta and took the same to Tau village. This witness in his cross examination has categorically deposed that the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-63-2943 was carrying goods of Laiq Ram and his son. Though this witness in his cross-examination stated that he did not remember whether he issued bills against articles sold to the deceased, but he specifically denied that he was deposing falsely, in favour of the claimant. 26. Ashish, respondent No.1, who had appeared as RW-2, has deposed that the deceased were traveling in the Jeep as owners of goods. Cross examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that the opposite party was able to extract from this witness, anything contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. Mere non-production of bills of goods by respondent No.2 or the claimant nowhere establishes that the Kariana items were not being transported by the deceased in the vehicle in question in the Jeep of Surjan i.e. father of Ashish. 27. Though the appellant Insurance Company made an attempt to make out a case that Pradeep Kumar was not running any Kariana shop, but no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record in this regard, rather the version put forth by PW-6 Pradeep Kumar with regard to his having owned a Kariana shop came to be corroborated with the version of claimant as well as owner of the vehicle, Ashish son of Surjan. No doubt, appellant Insurance Company produced Criminal Ahlmad to prove the fact that there were no goods in the vehicle at the time of accident, but the complainant SI Gauri Dutt, at whose instance FIR was registered, was never examined. Careful perusal of contents of FIR nowhere suggests that the complainant Gauri Dutt ever visited the spot of accident. Had he visited the spot of accident, he would have recorded factum with regard to transportation/non-transportation of goods, if any, in the ill fated vehicle, in which the deceased were traveling. 28. Mr. Careful perusal of contents of FIR nowhere suggests that the complainant Gauri Dutt ever visited the spot of accident. Had he visited the spot of accident, he would have recorded factum with regard to transportation/non-transportation of goods, if any, in the ill fated vehicle, in which the deceased were traveling. 28. Mr. Sharma argued that the driving licence Ex.RW-2/A is fake as Surjan Singh was not a resident of Nagaland and address of offending vehicle is of District Shimla. Though, he argued that according to the information issued by the Transport Commissioner of Nagaland, licenses issued in booklet or manual format are not genuine, but the fact remains that the insurance company led no positive evidence to establish that the driving licence Ex.RW-2/A is/was fake, neither any official from District Transport Office, Wokha, Nagaland was ever examined nor any record from said office was ever adduced/summoned so as to prove that the driving licence Ex.RW-2/A was not valid or officially issued. Moreover, the information dated 01.08.2014 allegedly supplied by the office of the Transport Commissioner, Nagaland was never proved in accordance with law before learned Tribunal below, as such same was rightly ignored. 29. True it is that though the claimant claimed that prior to the accident the deceased were earning Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per month respectively from their agricultural pursuits, but she failed to prove the same by adducing on record documentary evidence, if any, and as such Tribunal below, having taken note of the fact that both the deceased were agriculturists, which fact otherwise never came to be refuted by the insurance company, while applying guesswork qua the income of deceased, assessed their monthly incomes at Rs.10,000/-. Though this Court is in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that, since no cogent and convincing evidence was available with regard to monthly incomes of the deceased, Tribunal below ought to have assessed the same on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, under Minimum Wages Act, but in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased Sanjay Kumar at the time of his death was 30 years of age and he was looking after his orchard and as such, Tribunal below while placing reliance upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivakumar M. vs. Managing Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Trnasport Corporation, (2017)5 SCC 79 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court had assessed the income of casual workman i.e. painter @ Rs.15,000 to Rs.16,500/- per month, proceeded to assess the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Similarly, Tribunal below having taken note of the fact that the deceased Laiq Ram was an agriculturist and was looking after his orchard, also assessed his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month being a progressive horticulturist. 30. Learned counsel representing the Insurance Company placed reliance upon the judgment dated 25.10.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.4006 of 2013 in case titled: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Verma and judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by this Court in FAO 244 of 2018, titled: Cholamandalam MS GIC vs. Smt.Neelam and Others, wherein it has been held that in the absence of specific proof with regard to monthly income of deceased, same should be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act. 31. Though there cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid preposition of law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment taking note hereinabove, but Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivakumar’s supra, having taken note of the fact that the deceased in that case was a painter, assessed his monthly income at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-, as has been assessed by the Tribunal below in the case at hand. While making aforesaid assessment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that for a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place, doing his painting work, it is difficult to get any evidence qua his/her income, since there is no permanent employer. 32. While making aforesaid assessment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that for a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place, doing his painting work, it is difficult to get any evidence qua his/her income, since there is no permanent employer. 32. In the case at hand, though no documentary evidence has been led on record by the claimant with regard to the income, as claimed by her in the claim petition, but statement made by the claimant with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, on account of their having orchards, has been duly corroborated by other witnesses. As has been taken note hereinabove, appellant Insurance Company as also respondent No.2 have not been able to refute the claim of the claimant that the deceased owned orchard and as such, it can be safely presumed and inferred that both the deceased were earning Rs.10,000/- per month, each, from their orchards. 33. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6152 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6466 of 2019, in case titled Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., has held that in the absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done, but at the same time, the same should not be totally detached from reality. The Hon’ble Court has held as under:- “10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15000/ per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15000/ per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs.15000/ per month. In the case of Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 695 this Court while dealing with the claim relating to an accident which occurred on 08.11.2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle at Rs.6000/ per month. In this case the accident was C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence on record we may take the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/ per month for the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made towards loss of future prospects. At the same time deduction of 1/3 rd is to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs.7467/ per month. By applying the multiplier of ‘16’ the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/. As an amount of Rs.10,99,700/ is already paid towards the loss of dependency the appellant parents are entitled for differential compensation of Rs.3,33,964/. Further in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130 the appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/ each. Further in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 = (2018) 18 SCC 130 the appellants are also entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/ each. The finding of the Tribunal that parents cannot be treated as dependents runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.6466 of 2019 Sarla Verma (Smt). & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.4. The judgment in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 relied on by the counsel for the respondent would not render any assistance in support of his case having regard to facts of the case and the evidence on record. 34. As has been taken note hereinabove, there is no dispute that at the time of the accident, deceased were owners of orchards and as such learned Tribunal below, instead of assessing monthly income of deceased on the basis of Minimum Wages Act, rightly proceeded to assess the same by applying guess-work, which, in the cases at hand cannot be said to be detached from reality. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the claimant, who happens to be mother and wife of the deceased namely; Sanjay and Laiq Ram, that at the time of accident, both the deceased were earning handsome amount, but yet the Tribunal below, taking note of the fact that no documentary evidence ever came to lead on record with regard to earnings of the deceased, rightly assessed the income of both the deceased as Rs.10,000/- each per month, by applying guess-work, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive and/or higher. 35. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the awards passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla-(III) and the same are upheld. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 36. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.