JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation while challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Cases No.240/2012 (CIS No.370/2014) and 176/2012 (CIS No.273/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.12,18,000/- and Rs.14,60,000/- respectively in favour of respective claimants. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @7.5% per annum on the compensation from the date of filing the claim petition. Both these appeals arising out of same accident are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the respondents on account of death of their bread winners, who lost their life in the accident, which took place on 19.09.2012. In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia alleged by the claimants that on 19.09.2012 deceased, namely, Ramlal and Narayan Lal along with their friends went to have darshan of Ashapura temple in Car number RJ-24-CA-3230 and while they were returning from the temple, at about 04:00 pm, a truck bearing number HR-38L-7575, which was plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the car and on account of injuries suffered by the occupants of the car, Ramlal and Narayanlal died on the spot. FIR No.320/2012 of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against Shaukin, driver of the offending truck for the offences under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. At the time of accident, non-claimant No.1 was plying the vehicle under the employment and instructions of non-claimant No.2 and the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company. It was further alleged in the claim petitions that deceased Ramlal and Narayan were 22 and 26 years of age. At the time of accident, non-claimant No.1 was plying the vehicle under the employment and instructions of non-claimant No.2 and the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company. It was further alleged in the claim petitions that deceased Ramlal and Narayan were 22 and 26 years of age. In the claim petition No.176/2012 preferred by claimants Geeta and others alleged that deceased Ramlal was earning Rs.12000/- per month and they claimed compensation of Rs.1,15,15,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. In claim petition No.240/2012, preferred by claimants Durga Devi and others alleged that as per ITR for AY 2010-11, the yearly income of deceased Narayan was Rs.1,43,710/- as he was running a shop in the name and style of M/s Sundesha Fashion and they claimed compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. 3. After the claim petitions being registered, summons were issued to the non-claimants and despite service, nobody put in appearance on behalf of non-claimant No.1 and, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered against him on 30.03.2013. 4. On behalf of owner/non-claimant No.2, reply to claim petitions was filed while denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was alleged that the accident had not been caused by their vehicle. It was further submitted in the reply that at the time of accident, the vehicle was fully insured with non-claimant No.3 and, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, was of the non-claimant No.3. 5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, it was submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle and the vehicle was being plied without there being valid permit and fitness issued by the competent authority. It was thus alleged in the reply that on account of violation of policy conditions, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was further alleged that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending truck and the claimants have concealed material facts with a view to usurp the compensation. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claims, the claimants examined AW.1 Durga Devi, AW.2 Prakash Chandra, AW.3 Geeta and AW.4 Jeevaram. In documentary evidence, 39 documents were exhibited. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claims, the claimants examined AW.1 Durga Devi, AW.2 Prakash Chandra, AW.3 Geeta and AW.4 Jeevaram. In documentary evidence, 39 documents were exhibited. No evidence was led by the non-claimants. 7. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 27.06.2017 partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.14,60,000/- and Rs.12,18,000/- in favour of respective claimants. 8. The appellants/claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that while deciding the claim petition (240/2012 : Durga Devi @ Piniki & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors.), the learned Tribunal has committed error while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was earning Rs.1,43,710/- per year by running a shop viz. M/s Sundesha Fashion. Apart from the income from doing the business, deceased Narayan Lal was earning Rs.2,80,000/- per annum by doing agriculture work, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the income tax returns produced by the claimants along with their claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants further submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants further submits that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is also on lower side and the same also deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that the compensation awarded qua other conventional heads also deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants submits that while deciding the claim petition (176/2012 : Smt. Geeta & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors.) the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- only, though the claimants by producing salary certificate (Ex.31) issued by the employer of deceased Ramlal, pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- while working with firm M/s Velaji Jaisaji. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants thus submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the loss of income while considering the minimum wages at Rs.4,000/- is erroneous and the same ought to have been considered at Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants thus submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the loss of income while considering the minimum wages at Rs.4,000/- is erroneous and the same ought to have been considered at Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants thus submits that the compensation be enhanced accordingly. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded under other heads also deserves to be enhanced. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. while reiterating the stand taken before the learned Tribunal submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal adequate and the same calls for no enhancement. 13. Service upon respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner was dispensed with by order dated 23.11.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 15. This Court finds force in the contention raised by counsel for the appellants/claimants that though ITR(s) of the deceased were produced before the learned Tribunal showing that yearly income of the deceased was Rs.1,43,710/-, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the same and while treating the deceased to be self employed and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month only. This Court thus finds that the compensation under the head of loss of income deserves to be re-quantified while considering the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.1,43,710/- as ITR for AY 2010-11 with 40% future prospects while applying multiplier of 17. The calculation re-quantifying the compensation under the loss of income is as infra: Yearly Income of the deceased Narayanlal Rs.1,43,710/-. Add: Future Prospects 40% Rs. 57,484/- Rs.2,01,194/- Multiplier of 17: Rs.2,01,194/- x 17 = Rs.34,20,298/- Deduction ¼ Rs.8,55,074/- Total loss of income Rs.25,65,224/- 16. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the compensation payable to the claimants under other heads are also re-quantified. 17. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants viz. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2779/2017 : Smt. Durga Devi @ Pinki & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors., is partly allowed. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the compensation payable to the claimants under other heads are also re-quantified. 17. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants viz. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2779/2017 : Smt. Durga Devi @ Pinki & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors., is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 27.06.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.240/2012 (CIS No.370/2014) is modified accordingly and the claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation as under: - S. No. Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court 1. Compensation under the head of loss of income Rs.12,24,000/- Rs.25,65,224/- 2. Consortium (Rs.48,000 x 6) Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,88,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.18,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.18,000/- 5. Transportation charge Rs.1,000/- Nil Grand Total Rs.14,60,000/- Rs.28,89,224/- Less amount awarded by learned Tribunal Rs.14,60,000/ Rs.14,29,224/- 18. The appellants/claimants of CMA No.2779/2017 are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.14,29,224/- along with same interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3 is accordingly directed to pay the said enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 19. Insofar as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2780/2017 : Geeta & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors. is concerned, this Court finds that though the claimants have alleged that the deceased Ramlal was earning Rs.12,000/- and to substantiate the aforesaid plea, they have exhibited salary certificate (Ex.31) issued by the employer of deceased, however, the claimants have failed to prove the same by producing the employer of the deceased in the witness box. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while quantifying the compensation under the head of loss of income, has taken into consideration the prevailing monthly wages @ Rs.6,000/-, and rightly so, inasmuch as the claimants have not produced the person concerned i.e. the employer who had issued the salary certificate. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has awarded not erred in assessing the monthly income of deceased Ramlal at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads is also adequate one and the same also calls for no enhancement. 20. Accordingly, and in view of above discussion, S.B. Civil Misc. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has awarded not erred in assessing the monthly income of deceased Ramlal at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the compensation awarded under other heads is also adequate one and the same also calls for no enhancement. 20. Accordingly, and in view of above discussion, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2780/2017 has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.