JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Suraj Naik, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 16.04.2014 to the extent the Tribunal has not awarded the claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- but awarded compensation of only Rs. 4,34,000/-.

3. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that, in this case, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased Sanju at Rs. 4,500/- when, in fact, his employer (AW-3) had deposed that the deceased was a truck driver employed by him and was paid a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month.

4. Mr. Mulgaonkar, without prejudice, submitted that the Tribunal erred in not making any addition for future prospects and consortium. He submitted that even the amount awarded towards the loss of estate should have been Rs. 15,000/- and not merely Rs. 5,000/-.

5. Mr. Suraj Naik, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, defended the impugned award based on the reasonings reflected therein. In particular, he pointed out that A3, who claims to be an employer of the deceased, had neither produced any employment letter nor salary certificate in support of hi