JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The instant appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahapura, District Jaipur (hereafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). Facts of the case: 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 315/2020 has been preferred by the appellant Renu Kanwar and others (hereinafter to be referred to as “Legal Heirs of the Deceased”) on account of death of Dhanraj, wherein, learned Tribunal estimated compensation to the tune of Rs.8,88,672/- in M.A.C. Case No. 32/2013. 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 167/2020 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant Mukesh Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as “injured”), wherein, the claim petition was partly allowed and the compensation was granted to the tune of Rs.2,66,312/- in M.A.C. Case No. 31/2013. 4. Both the appellants are dissatisfied with the compensation awarded and have preferred the appeals for enhancement of the claim amount. 5. Learned Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the injured Mukesh Singh sustained injuries and the deceased died in the motor accident on 28.11.2012 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. RJ32-UA- 3462. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.3,822/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,312/-, the break up of which is as under: Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,75,000/- Hospital Expenses Rs. 4,116/- Bed Charges @ Rs.600/- per day for 32 days Rs. 19,200/- Medical Expenses Rs. 32,996/- Transportation Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Physical and Mental Agony Rs. 25,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 2,66,312/- 7. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. In the appeal instituted by the legal heirs of the deceased, learned Tribunal assessed the deceased income as Rs.3,822/- (Rs.147/- per day) per month and assessed the compensation in the following heads: Loss of Income Rs. 5,84,766/- Future Prospects Rs. 2,33,906/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 8,88,672/- 9. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Contentions of Appellants 10. 5,84,766/- Future Prospects Rs. 2,33,906/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 8,88,672/- 9. Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Contentions of Appellants 10. Learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured and the deceased considering them semi-skilled labour by applying the prevalent rates on the date of occurrence as per the Notification of the Labour Department, whereas, the injured was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal discarded the pay certificate Exhibit-132 of injured Mukesh (appellant in CMA No. 167/2020) and Exhibit-135 of Dhan Singh (deceased in CMA No. 315/2012). 11. The award under the head of loss of income is inadequate and the learned Tribunal did not award compensation under the head of future prospects to the injured and compensation awarded to legal heirs under the head of future prospects and loss of consortium is insufficient as per the settled Law. Analysis Assessment of Income 12. Whether the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured and deceased considering them semi-skilled labour by applying the prevalent rates on the date of occurrence as per the Notification of the Labour Department, whereas, the appellant injured was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and despite producing the salary certificates learned Tribunal discarded the testimony of AW-1 and AW-2. 13. On the above fact, learned Tribunal held that claimants failed to prove the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month. The documentary proof indicating the claimed salary Exhibit-132 and Exhibit-135 are not proved. Learned Tribunal further opined that the claimants have failed to produce the persons who have issued the said certificates to prove the aforesaid documents. Hence, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly salary of the injured appellant and the deceased based on the prevalent rates of the Labour Department. 14. Section 168 of the Act of 1988 enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly. 15. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly. 15. In the case of Civil Appeal No. 1920/2021 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18728-18729/2018 Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “12. Second, although it is correct that the claimants have been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod’s income, nor have they established his employment as a teacher; but that doesn’t justify adoption of the lowesttier of minimum wage while computing his income. From the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a motorcycle for commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased’s family is a fundamental endeavour of motor accident compensation law. Thus, at the very least, the minimum wage of Rs.6,197/- as applicable to skilled workers during April, 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied in his case.” 16. In the case in hand appellant injured claimed himself to be a Teacher at the relevant time with his earning as Rs.10,000/- per month and the legal heir of the deceased averred that deceased was working as a Mason at the relevant time having a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. 17. To substantiate the claims injured has deposed that at the relevant time, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and exhibited the salary certificate Exhibit-132 and further submitted his mark sheet of B.Ed. Whereas AW-2 wife of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was a Mason and his monthly salary was Rs.10,000/- per month. 18. The record of learned Tribunal shows that the claimants did not furnish pay slips, bank statements, appointment letters etc. to validate the fact about the salary received by the injured Mukesh and the deceased Dhan Singh. 19. The mere exhibition of the salary certificates is not enough to substantiate the claimant's assertion. They ought to have produced conceivable evidence to ascertain their employment and the facts about the salary as averred. 20. In the absence of the above circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly discarded the salary certificates of the injured and the deceased. 21. 19. The mere exhibition of the salary certificates is not enough to substantiate the claimant's assertion. They ought to have produced conceivable evidence to ascertain their employment and the facts about the salary as averred. 20. In the absence of the above circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly discarded the salary certificates of the injured and the deceased. 21. As far as the assessment of monthly salary of the injured and deceased is concerned, learned Tribunal adopted Notification of the Labour Department treating them in the category of labours and assessed the income of the injured appellant Mukesh and deceased Dhan Singh at Rs.3,822/-. 22. In this regard, surely adopting the Notification issued by the Labour Department treating a qualified Teacher in the category of unskilled labour is not only harsh but rather disrespectful to the persons, who are engaged in teaching work. Unskilled labour is a class where the person's educational qualification is immaterial and his particular skill, to do a particular work, is paramount, whereas for teaching one needs to at least ought to have a bare minimum qualification. In the case of the appellant, it is proved that at the relevant time, he owned the essential qualification fundamental for holding the post of a Teacher. Therefore, assessment of his salary putting him on par with unskilled Labour does not appear to be a reasonable yardstick. 23. Certainly, a Teacher falls above the category of unskilled labour and his salary needs to be assessed by applying at least the wages applicable to Highly Skilled persons. Vide notification dated 06.08.2012 Minimum Wage for the Highly Skilled persons was Rs.5,642/- per month. Therefore, income of the injured Mukesh is assessed as Rs.5,642/- per month. 24. At the relevant time deceased was working as a Mason. As per the Notification of the Labour Department, Mason falls in the category of skilled labour and at the relevant time period minimum wage for skilled labour was Rs.4,342/- per month, hence income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,342/- per month. 25. 24. At the relevant time deceased was working as a Mason. As per the Notification of the Labour Department, Mason falls in the category of skilled labour and at the relevant time period minimum wage for skilled labour was Rs.4,342/- per month, hence income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,342/- per month. 25. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability to injured Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, decided on 18 October, 2010 Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 and SLP (C) No. 10383/2007 opined that assessment of loss of income should be done by the Tribunals while keeping following factors in mind: “(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 26. In the touchstone of the above guidelines in the instant case also even if the injured is taken to be a Teacher the fact that he lost his right eye vision and further disfiguration of the nose and at the forehead, the permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical Board Exhibit-17 categorically validates the above facts and classified the permanent disability @ 35% of the entire body. 27. The loss of one eyesight has definitely affected the capacity to perform teaching work. 27. The loss of one eyesight has definitely affected the capacity to perform teaching work. It is to be taken note that the injured is to do the teaching work for the rest of his life, without the use of his one eye and this is bound to affect the quality of his teaching in comparison to similarly situated persons. 28. Learned Tribunal has taken the functional disability as 35% and assessed the loss of income as Rs.1,75,000/-. Learned Tribunal assessed the loss of future earning without considering and applying the multiplier applicable for the injured. The assessed income of the injured per month is Rs.5,645/- and considering the injured age, the multiplier of 18 is applicable. Thus the annual loss of future income comes to as under: Rs. 5645 x 35/100 Rs. 1,975/- Actual loss of future income Rs. 1975 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,26,600/- Assessment of future loss of earnings due to death of the deceased: 29. The assessed income of the deceased is Rs.4,342/- per month and after applying the standard deduction of 1/4th towards own expenses, the award under the above head comes as under: Rs.3,257x12x17=Rs.6,64,428/- Under the head of future prospects to injured and legal heirs of the deceased: 30. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases. 31. Therefore, in my considered opinion, learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the compensation to the injured appellant under the head of future prospects also but the learned Tribunal after the specific finding did not award any compensation under the above head. 32. Applying the analogy rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the appellant falls in the classification of 40% for computing the compensation under the head of future prospects. 33. Thus, injured is entitled to get the following compensation under the head of future prospects: Rs.4,26,600x40/100=Rs.1,70,640/- 34. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get the following compensation under the head of the future prospect as per the principle enumerated in Pranay Sethi's case (supra): Rs.6,64,428x40/100=Rs.2,65,771/- Loss of Consortium to Legal Heirs of the Deceased: 35. 33. Thus, injured is entitled to get the following compensation under the head of future prospects: Rs.4,26,600x40/100=Rs.1,70,640/- 34. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get the following compensation under the head of the future prospect as per the principle enumerated in Pranay Sethi's case (supra): Rs.6,64,428x40/100=Rs.2,65,771/- Loss of Consortium to Legal Heirs of the Deceased: 35. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020, decided on 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that all the legal heirs are entitled to get payment of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded to the legal heris under this head. 36. On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimants/appellants under different heads ought to be as under: In the case of injured Mukesh (S.B.C.M.A. No. 167/2020) Loss of earning capacity due to functional disability Rs. 4,26,600/- Medical expenses Rs. 32,996/- Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,70,640/- Hospital Expenses Rs. 4,116/- Bed Charges @ Rs.600/- day for 32 days Rs. 19,200/- Physical and Mental Agony Rs. 25,000/- Transportation Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 6,88,552/- In the case of Legal Heirs of deceased Dhan Singh (S.B.C.M.A. No. 315/2020) Loss of Income Rs. 6,64,428/- Future Prospects Rs. 2,65,771/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 11,20,199/- 37. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified as above and the claimants/appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,88,552/- instead of Rs.2,66,312/- in S.B.C.M.A. No. 167/2020 and Rs.11,20,199/- instead of Rs.8,88,672/- in S.B.C.M.A. No. 315/2020, respectively alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of making the application as per the terms of the learned Tribunal. 38. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4,22,240/- in S.B.C.M.A. No. 167/2020 and Rs.2,31,527/- in S.B.C.M.A. No. 315/2020 after computing the amount already deposited (in terms of the impugned award dated 19.09.2019) along with the above interest in the learned Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of the order. 39. Consequently, the appeals stand allowed.