JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ Insurance Company. 2. Notice upon respondent no.2 who is the owner has already been effected and in spite of that he has chosen not to appear. 3. This appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the part of the Award dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned District Judge IV-cum- P.O, M.A.C.T., Bokaro, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.153 of 2019. 4. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the Award. He submits that Rs.6,81,520/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. He submits that CW-1, CW-2 and CW3 have supported before the learned court that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month as he was doing the skilled work of Tiles and Marbles. He submits that even the person in whose house he has worked as Tiles and Marble Mistry has deposed before the leaned court that he has done the work of Marble in his house and in view of that he is skilled worker. He submits that in light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case, the future prospects has not been provided in the Award. 5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ Insurance Company opposed the prayer on the ground that he was not a skilled worker and in view of that, the learned court has rightly calculated the income. He submits that there is no case of enhancement is made out. 6. From the records, its transpires that the claimants have filed the said case stating that on 06.10.2019, Mahavir Kewat was returning his house by Auto No.JH09AL-5558 along with other persons, after his work and as the Auto reached near Makoli Petrol Pump, it turned turtle at about 7.00 PM in a water pit suddenly, due to which, his head pressed by the auto and he sustained grievous injury and in his unconscious condition, he was admitted at Regional Hospital Dhori, where he was declared dead whereas one other passenger namely Dhaneswar Kewat and Driver Hari Kewat also sustained light injury in that accident. The said occurrence occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Auto Driver. From the records, it also transpires that the deceased was working as Tiles and Marbles Mistry and that has also been proved by way of a person in whose house (CW-3) the deceased has worked as Tiles and Marble Mistry. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed seven issues and decided the claim. 8. Thus, it appears that the deceased was a skilled person and in view of that the minimum wages of skilled person is required to be applied, however, the learned Tribunal has calculated Rs.5,460/- and in view of that, the monthly income of the deceased is required to be multiplied with minimum wages at that time, i.e., Rs.9,876/-. 9. In view of above, the Award is modified to the effect that, monthly income should be Rs.9,876/-, in place of Rs.5,460/-. 10. In light of the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein at paragraph no.59.4, it has been held as under: “59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 11. In view of above judgment, the future prospects should be there, and the appellants are entitled for 25% of the income. As such, future prospects will be further added in the Award. 12. In light of the above, the Award dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned District Judge IV-cum- P.O, M.A.C.T., Bokaro, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.153 of 2019 is hereby modified to the above extent 13. So far as other directions of the learned Tribunal is concerned that has not been interfered by this Court. 13. It has been pointed out that the Original Award has already been satisfied and in view of the modification made today, the same will be satisfied by the Insurance Company within eight weeks. 14. M.A. No.60 of 2023 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 15. 13. It has been pointed out that the Original Award has already been satisfied and in view of the modification made today, the same will be satisfied by the Insurance Company within eight weeks. 14. M.A. No.60 of 2023 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the learned court concerned forthwith.