JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court) Sriganganagar in MACT Case Nos.65/2022, 66/2022 & 67/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and passed an award in favour of the claimants therein. 2. Brief facts as averred in the claim petitions are that an FIR was lodged by one Chandana Ram Choudhary on 07.11.2021, stating therein that he, alongwith one Prem Singh was travelling from Jaisalmer to Tanot Mata Temple. One Toyota vehicle No.RJ- 31-CV-2474 was moving ahead of them. At about 18 kms from Ramgarh, a camel came running from the right and to avoid collision, driver of the car applied sudden brakes due to which the vehicle overturned. All three females and two males occupying the car suffered serious head injuries. They were rescued out of the car by Chandana Ram, Prem Singh and one passing-by traveller Pramod. Arjita, Anju, Varshika and Vishal, four occupants of the car succumbed to the injuries on the spot and fifth occupant Rinku was admitted in the Government Hospital at Ramgarh who also expired during the treatment. As per the claim petitions, the vehicle was driven by Vishal. FIR No.76/2021 qua the incident was registered at Police Station Ramgarh. 3. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with appellant Insurance Company. (A) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2025 (i) The present appeal arises out of Claim Petition No.66/2022, pertaining to death of Anju. (ii) The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.21,500/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.44,96,000/- in favour of the claimants, the breakup of which is as under: Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 04.05.2022. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised following grounds: (a) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased as she was unemployed and did not possess a regular income. The entries in the bank statement/passbook reflect an irregular income, and these entries even ceased in mid-2020. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised following grounds: (a) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased as she was unemployed and did not possess a regular income. The entries in the bank statement/passbook reflect an irregular income, and these entries even ceased in mid-2020. Therefore, it could not have been concluded that deceased Anju was employed as a teacher with Prakash Model School, Pillibanga; (b) The learned Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 50% whereas it ought to have been 40%, keeping in view the temporary nature of the employment of the deceased. (iv) Per contra learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants submitted that, as the deceased possessed an offer letter for government service, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income specified in the offer letter while computing the loss of income. Counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the rate of future prospects in accordance with the nature of the employment of the deceased. (v) Heard learned counsels. Perused the Record. (vi) Rajiv (AW-2), husband of the deceased specifically deposed that his wife had been selected for government service. The fact was clearly established on record that the deceased was selected for the post of Level-2 Teacher in the Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment-2018. Vide Office Order dated 18.01.2021 (Exhibit-76), even a School of posting was allotted to her. But then, the final appointment order came to be issued on 26.03.2022, that is, after her unfortunate death. (vii) But then, no cross-objection/cross-appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. (viii) A perusal of the record reflects that the bank statement (Exhibit-30) does not reflect any deposit of salary of the deceased subsequent to April 2020. Meaning thereby, there was no conclusive proof on record to hold that the deceased was employed with the Prakash Model School, Pilibanga as averred, on the date of accident. But then as discussed in the preceding paras, the deceased had been selected for a Government job and was even issued an appointment order for the same. Meaning thereby, there was no conclusive proof on record to hold that the deceased was employed with the Prakash Model School, Pilibanga as averred, on the date of accident. But then as discussed in the preceding paras, the deceased had been selected for a Government job and was even issued an appointment order for the same. Keeping into consideration the overall facts – qualification of the deceased, her being employed with a private school earlier, she having been selected for a Government job; this Court deems it proper to affirm the income/salary as computed by the learned Tribunal. Although it is the settled position of law that the Courts are empowered to enhance compensation even in absence of cross- objection/cross-appeal, keeping into consideration the fact that the deceased being in employment with a private school on the date of accident, being not proved on record, this Court holds that the computation of income as made by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference for the reason of it been established on record that the deceased had been appointed for a Government job and but for the unfortunate accident, would have joined the same. (ix) So far as the other aspects pertaining to the age of the deceased, the multiplier as applied, future prospects as considered, the consortium amount as awarded, the amount qua funeral expenses and loss of estate as awarded are concerned, all being totally in consonance with law, do not deserve any interference. (x) Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.66/2022 is affirmed and the present appeal as filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (xi) The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation (if not deposited yet) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. (xii) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (B) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/2025 (i) The present appeal arises out of Claim Petition No.65/2022, pertaining to death of Arjit. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. (xii) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (B) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 246/2025 (i) The present appeal arises out of Claim Petition No.65/2022, pertaining to death of Arjit. (ii) The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.21,500/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.35,93,000/- in favour of the claimants, the breakup of which is as under: Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 04.05.2022. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised following grounds: (a) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of deceased Arjit as Rs.21,500/- per month whereas there were major discrepancies reflected in the bank statement of the deceased qua the head of salary. The Bank Statement (Exhibit-44) did not reflect the deposit of salary from June 2020 to March 2021 which clearly established the irregularity in the employment of the deceased. (b) The learned Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 50% whereas it ought to have been 40%, keeping in view the temporary nature of the employment of the deceased. (iv) Per contra learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased on basis of the employment/salary certificate issued by the concerned employer. So far as the discrepancy in the deceased's bank statement under the salary head is concerned, Counsel contended that the variation in entries is of the COVID-19 pandemic period. The amount of salary deposited during that period differed from the salary credited in the subsequent months but the same cannot be concluded to be an irregularity in income. (v) Heard learned counsels. Perused the Record. (vi) Admittedly, the accident in question was of 07.11.2021 and the claimants were under a burden to prove the income of the deceased on the said date. The Salary Certificate (Exhibit-49) reflects the deceased to be employed as a Lab Technician with a private school since February 2021. The Bank Statement (Exhibit- 44) also reflects a regular deposit of Rs.21,500/- per month as salary since the month of February 2021. The Salary Certificate (Exhibit-49) reflects the deceased to be employed as a Lab Technician with a private school since February 2021. The Bank Statement (Exhibit- 44) also reflects a regular deposit of Rs.21,500/- per month as salary since the month of February 2021. In the said facts, the discrepancy or non deposit of the salary during the period of June 2020 to March 2021 would even otherwise be of no relevance. The income since the month of February 2021 been proved on record by cogent documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the same and rightly computed the loss of income @ Rs.21,500/- per month. The said computation does not deserve any interference. (vii) So far as other aspects pertaining to the age of the deceased, the multiplier as applied, future prospects as considered, the consortium amount as awarded, the amount qua funeral expenses and loss of estate as awarded are concerned, all being totally in consonance with law, do not deserve any interference. (viii) Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.65/2022 is affirmed and the present appeal as filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ix) The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation (if not deposited yet) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. (x) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (C) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 247/2025 (i) The present appeal arises out of Claim Petition No.67/2022, pertaining to death of Rinku. (ii) The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.23,500/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.48,64,000/- in favour of the claimants, the breakup of which is as under: Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 04.05.2022. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised following grounds: (a) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of deceased Rinku as Rs.23,500/- per month whereas there were major discrepancies reflected in the bank statement of the deceased qua the head of salary. The Bank Statement (Exhibit-61) did not reflect the deposit of salary from April 2020 to January 2021 which clearly established the irregularity in the employment of the deceased. (b) The learned Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 50% whereas it ought to have been 40%, keeping in view the temporary nature of the employment of the deceased. (iv) Per contra learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased on basis of the employment/salary certificate issued by the concerned employer. (v) Heard learned counsels. Perused the Record. (vi) Admittedly, the accident in question was of 07.11.2021 and the claimants were under a burden to prove the income of the deceased on the said date. The Salary Certificate (Exhibit-54) reflects the deceased to be employed as a Senior Teacher with a private school since August 2019. The Bank Statement (Exhibit- 61) also reflects a regular deposit of Rs.21,500/- per month as salary since the month of August 2019 and further of Rs.23,500/- per month for month of October 2021. In view of the said facts, the discrepancy/non deposit of salary during the period of April 2020 to January 2021 would even otherwise be of no relevance. The income since month of August 2019 and further of October 2021, the month preceding the accident, been proved on record by cogent documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the same and rightly computed the loss of income @ Rs.23,500/- per month. The said computation does not deserve any interference. (vii) So far as other aspects pertaining to the age of the deceased, the multiplier as applied, future prospects as considered, the consortium amount as awarded, the amount qua funeral expenses and loss of estate as awarded are concerned, all being totally in consonance with law, do not deserve any interference. (viii) Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.65/2022 is affirmed and the present appeal as filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (viii) Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.65/2022 is affirmed and the present appeal as filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ix) The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation (if not deposited yet) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. (x) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.