JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3006/2017 & 3002/2017] 1. These two misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajsamand (‘Tribunal’) vide its judgment and award dated 27.03.2017 passed in MAC Case Nos.66/2012 & 65/2012 respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary, has awarded compensation to tune of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,27,600/- respectively on account of injuries suffered by claimant, Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku and death of sole bread winner late Sh. Manohar Singh. 2. Facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of these misc. appeals are that the appellants/claimants filed claim petitions under Sections 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act before the learned Tribunal on account of injuries suffered by Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku and on account of death of Sh. Manohar Singh claiming compensation to tune of Rs.20,82,000/- and 42,06,000/- respectively. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that on the fateful day i.e. on 22.08.2011, Manohar Singh (deceased), claimant Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku and their son along with other passengers were traveling from Ramdevra to Jodhpur in Bus bearing registration number RJ-15-PA-1100. On the roof of the said bus bicycles of passengers were kept. The driver of the said bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and since the bicycles were kept on the roof of the bus, the same touched the electricity line, as a result of which electricity flowed in the vehicle, which resulted in sustained injuries to the passengers of the bus. Claimant, Smt. Kamala sustained burn injuries and her husband, Sh. Manohar Singh died due to electrocution. In the claim petition, it was alleged that Sh. Manohar Singh at the accident was 30 years of age and was a skilled labour and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, it was stated that Sh. Manohar Singh was the sole bread winner of the family and on account of his untimely death, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.42,06,000/- and claimant Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku claimed compensation of Rs.20,82,000/- on account of injuries suffered by her in the said accident. FIR No.178/2011 was lodged in the concerned police station, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against driver of the vehicle (Ex.3). 3. After registration of the claim petitions, notices were issued to the non-claimants. FIR No.178/2011 was lodged in the concerned police station, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against driver of the vehicle (Ex.3). 3. After registration of the claim petitions, notices were issued to the non-claimants. Despite service upon non-claimants No.1 to 3 nobody appeared and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. 4. On behalf of non-claimant No.4, insurance company, reply was filed while refuting the claim laid by the claimants. It was alleged that in the bus the passengers were beyond its capacity and the registration certificate, fitness certificate and other documents were not available at the time of accident. It was alleged by the insurance company that since there was violation of the conditions of the policy, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Objection with respect to involvement of the vehicle itself in the accident was raised by the insurance company. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame five years issues including relief. 6. In support of their claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Kamala @ Jhamku and AW.2 Gangaram and in documentary evidence 52 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimant Insurance Company, statements of NAW.1 Manoj Kumar Chaplot were recorded and one document Ex.A/1 Policy was exhibited. 7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence vide its judgment and award dated 27.03.2017 proceeded to partly allow the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,27,600/- with interest @ 9% p.a. respectively, and the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon nonclaimant No.3 insurance company. 8. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2017, insofar as meager amount of compensation has been awarded, the appellants/claimants have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the expenses actually incurred by the claimant for her treatment, as she had suffered burn injury on account of electrocution and thereby has awarded meager compensation, which deserves to be suitably enhanced by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary head, which also deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary head, which also deserves to be enhanced. 10. As far as CMA No.3002/2017 preferred by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the deceased who was earning Rs.10,000/- months by doing construction work, however, the learned Tribunal while considering the deceased to be an unskilled labour, has considered his monthly income as Rs.4050 and also future enhancement in his income at Rs.2,025/- and thereby considered his monthly income as Rs.6075/- only, whereas it ought to be Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the multiplier of 16 has been applied while considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, whereas at the time of accident, the deceased was 30 years of age. Thus, in view of judgments passed in the case of Sarla Verms v. Delhi Transport Corporation : 2009 (2) TAC 677 SC, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that future prospects and increase in future income of the deceased has not at all been considered appropriately. He further submits that adequate compensation has not been awarded towards mental agony, transpiration charges and other expenses and issue with regard to dependency has not considered properly. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants thus prayed that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified and the compensation be enhanced. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 4, driver and insurance company opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/cross objector submits that the compensation and interested awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 13. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it, the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to claimant, Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku for the injuries suffered by her. On account of the injuries suffered by her, the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and no disability certificate was produced by her in the evidence. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it, the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to claimant, Smt. Kamala @ Jhamku for the injuries suffered by her. On account of the injuries suffered by her, the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and no disability certificate was produced by her in the evidence. The learned Tribunal has considered the injury report (Ex.17), in which three burn injuries were shown, however, there was no opinion of a doctor placed to show whether the injury was grievous or not. Thus, the learned Tribunal considering the nature of injury and medical bills that were produced, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which calls for no enhancement. 15. This Court also finds that in MAC Case No.65/2012 (CMA No.3002/2017) the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has rightly observed that the claimants have not produced any documents with respect to educational qualification, proof of income of the deceased were produced and the deceased was a skilled labour, therefore, the learned Tribunal in absence of any such documenary evidence, the learned Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month and treated him as unskilled labour and considering the minimum wages of an unskilled labour, has rightly assessed his income to be Rs.4050/- and after considering future prospects has added Rs.2025/- total Rs.6075/- per month income has been taken into consideration. The learned Tribunal has also considered the Ex.8 and 10, in which though the age of the deceased was shown as 30 years, however, in the said documents the age mentioned was imaginary and no strict proof of date of birth of the deceased was produced, therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be 35 years. The learned Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd qua personal expenses, has rightly assessed the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.48,600/- and while applying the multiplier of 16 has rightly assess the loss of income at Rs.7,77,600/-. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant No.1 towards the loss of consortium, which in the opinion of this Court is adequate and calls for no interference by this Court. 16. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant No.1 towards the loss of consortium, which in the opinion of this Court is adequate and calls for no interference by this Court. 16. This Court also finds that towards the loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000/- each have been awarded to the parents of the deceased and Rs.25,000/- have been awarded to the son of the deceased. Towards the expenses incurred for funeral, loss of assets and transportation the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- in favour of claimants. In sum and substance, in view of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants, which calls for no further enhancement by this Court. 17. In view of above discussion, no case for interference by this Court for enhancement of compensation in favour of claimants/appellants is made out. 18. Accordingly, the misc. appeals are hereby dismissed. No costs. [Cross Objection (Civil) No. 45/2023] 1. Since CMA No.3002/2017 has been dismissed without it being admitted, the cross-objection filed by the insurance company is considered to be premature. 2. Accordingly, the cross-objection is also dismissed.