JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved with inadequate compensation, awarded vide judgment dated 29.04.2002 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimants, being siblings of deceased Gautam Jain are before this Court by way of an appeal. 2. First of all, brief facts. On 07.01.1999, deceased Gautam Jain, Gopal along with Shobhalal, Mangilal, Chandanmal and Bothmal left their village Shivpur by a jeep No. RJ-06-C-4213 which was being driven by respondent No.1 – Om Prakash. At about 09:30 A.M. when jeep reached near Bhagana Talab, driver Om Prakash drove the jeep rashly and negligently due to which the jeep got down from road and over-turned in a pit. Due to impact of the over-turn, everyone in the jeep sustained serious injuries and Mangilal died on the spot. Later, Gautam Jain also succumbed to his injuries. On these averments, the widow, minor children of Gautam Jain and his mother filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned. 3. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were arraigned as driver, owner and the insurer of offending jeep respectively. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. All the averments contained in the claim petition were denied. They also denied liability for payment of compensation saying that the jeep was insured with insurer as a private vehicle and the deceased had travelled in the jeep as a passenger therefore, the jeep was being used for a hire and reward hence, insurance company is not liable. Additional objections regarding maintainability of the claim petition were also taken and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings submitted, framed various issues to adjudicate. 5. On appraisal of evidence and record, vide judgment dated 29.04.2002, the learned Tribunal held that Gautam Jain died due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the jeep by respondent No.1 – Om Prakash and he was working under directions and employment of respondent No.2 – Laxmilal, the owner of the vehicle involved. It decided issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly. It decided issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly. Under issues No. 3 and 4, it was held that deceased was not a passenger in the jeep and the jeep was not being used for a hire and reward therefore, these issues were decided in favour of the claimants holding that they were entitled to and the respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,06,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. Dissatisfied with the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred present appeal for enhancement of compensation praying for higher compensation. 6. Shri Nikhil Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that deceased Gautam Jain was 32 years of age at the time of his death; that he was an insurance agent besides running a grocery shop and doing farming work; that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum; that he left behind six dependents. He further canvasses that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month only; secondly, by not making any addition thereto for future prospects of the deceased and thirdly deducting Rs.300/- per month out of it for personal expenses of the deceased and thus, awarded inadequate compensation. It is further argued that income of the deceased calculated by the Tribunal was arbitrary since it was an admitted position that there was no rebuttal of evidence in respect of the income of the deceased adduced by his wife on oath. Total six persons were dependents upon the deceased therefore, income of the deceased must have been considered as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the Tribunal has taken his age as 32 years and has applied multiplier of 16, but looking to young age of the deceased, it ought to have applied multiplier of 18 instead of 16. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the deceased was a member of business community and he was selfemployed. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects, therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation in view of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Vs. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects, therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation in view of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Vs. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644 . It is also argued that even the compensation awarded under conventional heads was not in accordance with the norms established by Hon’ble the Apex Court. 8. Per contra, Shri T.R.S. Sodha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that no fault can be found with well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal hence, present appeal do not merit interference. There was no evidence with regard to the grocery shop, farming work and being the agent of the LIC of deceased and any alleged income arising out of said sources. In absence of any proof of income, the question of future prospects simply does not arise. He further supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellants have failed to make out a case for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record. 10. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for filing of an appeal against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. It is settled law that an appeal is continuation of proceedings of the Tribunal. An appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and all the questions of fact and law decided by the Tribunal are open for re-consideration in the appeal. Therefore, this Court is required to address all the questions raised before it. 11. In the present case, the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross-objections against the impugned award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal to the effect that accident was caused by respondent No.1-Om Prakash, while driving Jeep No. RJ-06-C-4213 in a rash and negligent manner, cause of accident and the liability of the insurer to pay compensation have, thus, attained finality. 12. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 13. 12. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 13. The claimants are aggrieved, inter alia, by assessment of meagre amount of monthly income of the deceased, the amount of deduction for personal expenses and award of inadequate compensation in conventional heads. 14. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal committed error in determining income of the deceased as Rs.1800 per month. He submitted that in any case, income of the deceased was not less than Rs.7,000 per month. He also submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal cannot stand to the scrutiny of law inasmuch as nothing is granted in favour of the claimants under the head of future prospects. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed. 15. Per contra, Mr. T.R.S. Sodha, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported judgment of the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 16. The claimants in their application for compensation claimed compensation based upon the income of the deceased Gautam Jain at Rs.6000 per month from all the three sources i.e. work of Insurance Agent, farming and running of a grocery shop in the village. In evidence led before the Tribunal, the claimant-wife Mathura Devi (AW-1) claimed that her husband used to generate an yearly income of around Rs.1,00,000 with Rs.7000 to Rs.8000 of that amount coming monthly from the grocery shop alone. During the cross-examination, she conceded to the suggestion of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the grocery shop had belonged to her father-in-law and after passing away of father-in-law, her husband took over the operations of the grocery shop and in Shivpur village there was one or two other grocery shops. 17. No doubt, there was no documentary evidence available on record which could throw light on precise income of the deceased, therefore, the determination of income of the deceased has to be largely a guess work but the approach of the Tribunal has to be judicious. Efforts has to be made to reach the just figure. 18. 17. No doubt, there was no documentary evidence available on record which could throw light on precise income of the deceased, therefore, the determination of income of the deceased has to be largely a guess work but the approach of the Tribunal has to be judicious. Efforts has to be made to reach the just figure. 18. So far as working as insurance agent and income from farming is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that both work definitely requires some documents to support the version of the claimants and in absence of the certification of LIC and nonproduction of land record in favour of the deceased, income from both the above sources cannot be found proved. 19. So far as income from third source is concerned, it was the specific case of the claimants that deceased was running a grocery shop. It appears from cross-examination of Mathura Devi (AW-1) that said evidence was not very seriously challenged though a suggestion was given to her that grocery shop belonged to her father-in-law. In response, the wife deposed that her husband had been running the grocery shop since death of her father-in-law. Thus, the insurance company has indirectly acknowledged the existence of grocery shop of the deceased and there was no reason to discard oral evidence of wife of the deceased on income of deceased form grocery shop. Therefore, from the categoric sworn statement of his wife, it had been established that deceased had an income from running of a grocery shop. 20. The age of the deceased Gautam Jain at the time of accident was 32 years and he was head of a family supporting his wife, four children and his mother. The accident pertains to year 1999. Given that perspective, it is not pragmatic, feasible or acceptable for a family of seven members, including the deceased, to survive and meet basic needs with an income of Rs.1800 per month, which amounts to Rs.60 per day only, specially considering cost of two meals at the relevant time and number of diets require for the family. I am of the considered view that food, shelter, clothing, education, health, medicine, transport, maintaining social and family relations, celebrating festivals and entertainment are the minimum and basic needs of a person to survive in the society. 21. I am of the considered view that food, shelter, clothing, education, health, medicine, transport, maintaining social and family relations, celebrating festivals and entertainment are the minimum and basic needs of a person to survive in the society. 21. In absence of income proof, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time, it cannot be an absolute one to fix income of the deceased. Furthermore, running a grocery shop by the deceased cannot be equated with a labour/wage earning work as it does not involve manual or skilled tasks. 22. After death of Gautam Jain, the business of grocery shop of the deceased might have also ceased because at that time the age of eldest son was only 6 years. 23. To my mind, the learned Tribunal has failed in taking a pragmatic and realistic view of the facts and circumstances and has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1800. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence, same does not justify considering the income on lower side. In absence of documentary evidence, the guess work for assessing the estimated income of the deceased should not be totally detached from the ground reality. 24. In view of the above state of evidence, assessment of income by the Tribunal at Rs.1800 per month is not found just and proper and it appears to be on lower side since the deceased would have earned sufficient income to maintain his entire family by running of grocery shop. Once it is established that deceased was running a grocery shop in his village, without there being any documentary proof about his income but considering all the relevant circumstances and keeping aside the exaggeration in respect of earning of deceased and looking to the nature of self employment of the deceased, this Court can safely reach to the conclusion that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.3500. 25. Deceased died at the age of 32 years. Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. However, I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal erred in not making any addition for the future prospects of the deceased. 26. The deceased left behind 6 dependents – his widow, four children and his mother. Learned Tribunal deducted Rs.300/- from income for personal expenses. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. However, I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal erred in not making any addition for the future prospects of the deceased. 26. The deceased left behind 6 dependents – his widow, four children and his mother. Learned Tribunal deducted Rs.300/- from income for personal expenses. As per Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , where the number of dependents are six, the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th of his income. Instead of Rs.300, deduction of 1/4th of income therefore, ought to have been made for personal expenses of the deceased. 27. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that in case the deceased was self employed, an addition of 40% of income should be awarded where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, 40% of income of the deceased has to be added towards loss of future prospects. 28. The Tribunal awarded amount of Rs.3,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000 for love and affection to all the claimants. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000 towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses. The said judgment was pronounced in the year 2017. Therefore, considering the time elapsed since then, the claimants are entitled to get 10% increase twice. In view of that, Rs.18,150 is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150 for funeral expenses. 29. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Somwati & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 644 , awarding of compensation for loss of consortium separately for wife, each child, mother and father of the deceased was upheld by the Apex Court. 30. To sum up, I am of the opinion that 40% addition for future prospects of the deceased ought to have been made to already assessed monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. Deduction of 1/4th of the income ought to be made for personal expenses. Further, for loss of consortium to each of the 6 claimants, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards spousal consortium to wife, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards parental consortium to each child and Rs.48,400/- is awarded towards filial consortium to the mother. 31. Deduction of 1/4th of the income ought to be made for personal expenses. Further, for loss of consortium to each of the 6 claimants, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards spousal consortium to wife, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards parental consortium to each child and Rs.48,400/- is awarded towards filial consortium to the mother. 31. Thus re-computed, the amount of compensation works out as under : A. Annual income of the deceased (3,500 x 12) 42,000 B. Added: future prospects (40%) 16,800 C. Total annual income of the deceased (A+B) 58,800 D. Deducted: towards personal expenses (1/4th) 14,700 E. Annual amount of dependency (C-D) 44,100 F. Multiplier to be applied 16 G. Total amount of dependency (E X F) 7,05,600 H. Added: Consortium to all claimants 2,90,400 I. Added: Loss of estate 18,150 J. Added: Funeral expenses 18,150 Total entitlement of the appellants 10,32,300 Amount awarded by the Tribunal 3,06,000 Enhanced amount to be paid 7,26,300 32. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of total compensation payable shall be Rs.10,32,300 instead of Rs.3,06,000. Further, it is so held and directed that after adjustment of payment, if already made, the insurance company shall pay to the claimants the amount of enhanced compensation along with the interest awarded, from the date of claim petition till date of realisation within 8 weeks from the date of this judgment. 33. On such deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in an appropriate ratio, deemed just and proper by the Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing to all the appellants in person. 34. Disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.