JUDGMENT : 1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara, in MACT Claim No.285/2018 (310/2017) whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.12,94,712/- as compensation to the appellants-claimants. 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal are enumerated herein below : 4. The appellants-claimants are dependents of Makbul Mansuri, who was a taxi driver and he expired in a road accident on 21.01.2017. The appellants-claimants filed the Claim Application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.77,10,000/- by impleading United India Insurance Company (Insurer), Udailal (Owner of the vehicle) and Satyanarayan (Driver of the vehicle) as respondents Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively. An FIR No.08/2017 to this effect was also registered at the Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.12,94,712/- as compensation to the appellant-claimants towards the death of Makbul Mansuri. 5. The bone contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the impugned award suffers from gross illegality inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the factum of monthly income of the deceased as well as did not take into account the component of rise in income of the deceased by future prospects while evaluating the compensation awardable to the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years of age and was drawing a salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased Makbul Mansuri was working as a taxi driver and he was having a valid and effective driving licence. The evidence to this effect has also been adduced in the trial. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,382/- instead of Rs.5,902/- which is the minimum wage scale as applicable in the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time. The evidence to this effect has also been adduced in the trial. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,382/- instead of Rs.5,902/- which is the minimum wage scale as applicable in the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time. He further submits that there is a specific pleading in the claim petition and then reiteraed the same in evidence. Even in cross-examination, Rashida Bee (AW/1), in response to the question asked by the respondents, has replied that her husband was driving a vehicle of owner of Aradhana Tent House. It is further submitted that as per the schedule of Minimum Wages applicable in Rajasthan, the minimum wage for a skilled person would be Rs.5,902/- per month. Thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have calculated monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,902/- per month. 7. As per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 , it was held that the rationale behind the awarding of future prospects is therefore no longer merely about the type of profession, whether permanent or otherwise, although the percentage awarded is still dependent on the same. The awarding of future prospects is now a part of the duty of the Court to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation, the quest of individuals to better their circumstances and those of their loved ones, rising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of work. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that if sufficient evidence is not produced to establish the fact of employment then he shall be considered to be a skilled labour. Since in the case at hand, the deceased was having a valid driving licence and ample evidence has been adduced to prove the fact that the deceased was working as a driver. It is asserted that if the learned Tribunal was not convinced with the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants regarding monthly income as pleaded in the claim petition even then he ought to have applied the formula of minimum wage of an unskilled labour and for which the table applicable in the State of Rajasthan can be considered. It is asserted that if the learned Tribunal was not convinced with the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants regarding monthly income as pleaded in the claim petition even then he ought to have applied the formula of minimum wage of an unskilled labour and for which the table applicable in the State of Rajasthan can be considered. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court over the table of wages applicable in the State as per which the minimum wage of a skilled labour has been shown to be Rs.5,902/- per month. The learned Tribunal has dealt with all other issues aptly except determination of monthly income which was considered to be Rs.5,382/- instead of Rs.5,902/-. He, thus, urges that suitable enhancement deserves to be ordered in the compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants by modifying the impugned award. 9. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Parihar, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He submits that the fact that the deceased was a driver has not been established by way of adducing cogent and clinching evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not erred in passing the impugned judgment and award, and thus, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and after scrutinizing the record, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that even if the evidence produced by the claimants-appellants is not found convincing then, the minimum wage as applicable in the State of Rajasthan should be applied. There are various judicial pronouncements on this aspect. The driving license of the deceased is already on record and his wife Rashida Bee (AW/1) deposed that he(deceased) was working as a driver but in absence of any sound proof, he may be treated as skilled labour for which the minimum wage as prescribed under the law is Rs.5,902/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased Makbul Mansuri would be considered to be Rs.5,902/-. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased Makbul Mansuri would be considered to be Rs.5,902/-. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) AIR (SC) 5157, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the deceased was self-employed or a person on a fixed salary and his age is below 40 years, then the future prospects should be paid to the tune of 40% of the established income. Reasonable figures were fixed as compensation on conventional heads. The amounts of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses were fixed at Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 13. In view of the discussion made herein above, the computation of compensation in the instant case is as follows :- S.No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 01. Monthly income 5,902 02. 40% of the actual income as adjustment for (future prospects) 2,360.8 03. Monthly income + 40% for future prospects 8,262.8 04. 1/5 of income as deduction towards personal expenses 1,652.56 05. Annual income after deduction towards personal expenses 6,610.24 X 12 =79,322.88 06. Age Multiplier 79,322.88 X 17 = 13,48,488.96 07. Conventional heads namely Funeral Charges, Loss of consortium and Loss of Estate 15,000+40,000+15,000 =70,000 Total Compensation 14,18,488.96 14. In light of above observations and considering the tabular computation, the appeal is allowed in part. The total motor accident compensation of Rs.12,94,712/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants-appellants is increased by Rs.1,23,776.96/- to reach a new total of Rs.14,18,488.96/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. The proportion and disbursement shall remain same as ordered by the learned tribunal and the amount of compensation is modified to the above extent.