JUDGMENT : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Falodi, Jodhpur (‘learned tribunal’) in MAC. No.06/2011 whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.11.2010 the driver of the Tanker bearing registration no.RJ19 IG 5314 dashed into Mangilal, who was riding his bike on the correct side of the road. As a result of the accident Mangilal suffered injuries and ultimately met his demise during the course of treatment in the hospital. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before the learned tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Mangilal (‘the deceased’). The respondent no.3-insurance company filed reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. On basis of pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed four issues. The appellants-claimants examined three witnesses (AW1 to AW3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.1 to Ex.12). The respondent no.3- insurance company failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition while fastening the liability, jointly and severally, on the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal the instant misc.appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side based on the minimum wages. He also submits that the deceased was an Advocate of 2.5 years standing and could not be compared to daily wagers. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding amount under the head of consortium, funeral expenses and future prospects on the lower side. He also submits that the deceased was an Advocate of 2.5 years standing and could not be compared to daily wagers. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding amount under the head of consortium, funeral expenses and future prospects on the lower side. He also submits that learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head of loss of estate and also erred making deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/4 on account of pesonal expenses. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that the learned tribunal has already awarded adequate amount of compensation hence, the same does not deserve to be enhanced. He also submits that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- as the appellants-claimants failed to produce any proof of income. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties. 6. As far as contention of the counsel for the appellants- respondents regarding the income is concerned this court finds that the learned tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- mainly on the grounds that no evidence has been produced by the appellants-claimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and also the deceased was an advocate with a standing of only two years. 6.1 This court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in case there is no documentary evidence to show monthly income of the deceased the income of such deceased person can be assessed by some guesswork however, such guesswork should not be detached from reality. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month.” 6.2. In Basanti Devi and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/1333/2021 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case wherein no documentary proof of income was available, has held that income can be assessed considering the potentiality to earn. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: “5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective sides and considering the fact that the deceased at the time of death/accident was aged 25 years of age and was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased at the time of death at least @ 20,000/- p.m. The same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. The submission on behalf of the Respondent - Insurance Company that as no documentary evidence was produced and/or laid in support of the documentary evidence produced on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. The submission on behalf of the Respondent - Insurance Company that as no documentary evidence was produced and/or laid in support of the documentary evidence produced on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month is concerned, assuming that there was no supporting evidence laid, in that case also considering the potentiality to earn, as the deceased was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, his income can safely be assessed at-least at Rs. 20,000/- per month. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the compensation from Rs. 30,54,000/- (Rs. 30,04,000/-)to Rs. 15,82,000/-.” 6.3. Thus, in even in cases where no documentary proof of income of the deceased is available on record, the court can assess the income considering the potentiality to earn while applying some guesswork however, such guesswork should not be detached from the reality. 6.4. This court considering the fact that the deceased was an advocate of a standing of approximately two years deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-per month. 7. Furthermore, this court finds that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of estate, thus, this court deems it appropriate to award Rs.18,150/- under this head in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Also, learned tribunal has erred in making a deduction of 1/3 on account of personal expenses of the deceased as looking to the number of dependants i.e., 5 deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased ought to be 1/4 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Further, this court finds that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount under the head of consortium (i.e., Rs.5,000/- each) and funeral expenses (i.e., Rs.2,000/-) and thus, the same deserve to be enhance to Rs.48,400/- each and Rs.18,150/- respectively in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) . Further, this court finds that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount under the head of consortium (i.e., Rs.5,000/- each) and funeral expenses (i.e., Rs.2,000/-) and thus, the same deserve to be enhance to Rs.48,400/- each and Rs.18,150/- respectively in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) . Further, the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a lumpsum towards the future prospect and the same should be @40% looking to the age of the deceased i.e., 27 years. 8. Thus, in view of the above, the amount of compensation awardable to the appellants-claimants is as under: S.N o. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as awarded/modified by this court 1. (add) Compensation towards loss of dependency 7000 (per month) + 2800(future prospect @40%)– 2450 (1/4 deduction on account of personal expenses) x 12 x 17 (Multiplier) = Rs.14,99,400/- [A] Rs.5,44,068/- Rs.14,99,400/- 2. (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400 x 5= 2,42,000/- [B] Rs. 25,000/- Rs.2,42,000/- 3. (add) Funeral Expenses [C] Rs.2,000 /- Rs.18,150/- 4. (add) Loss of Estate [D] nil Rs. 18,150/- Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D] Rs.5,71,068/- [E] Rs.17,77,700/- [F] Enhanced Amount [F]-[E] Rs. 12,06,632/- 9. Thus, the instant civil misc. appeal preferred by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly. 10. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.12,06,632/- along with interest @6% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the learned tribunal. 11. The amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the appellants/claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. 12. Pending Application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.