JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 08.12.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District: Mahasamund, (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. H-152/2014 awarding total compensation of Rs. 17,25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondents herein jointly and severally.

2. As per claim petition, on 20.02.2014, while the deceased Birendra Kumar Bariha was going on his motor cycle from village Bastar Bhattipara to Naikguda, at that time, the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E 0021, being driven by its driver/respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of deceased, as a result of which, deceased received serious injuries over his body and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3.

3. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,500/- per month by rounding of the figure, whereas it was assessed to be at Rs. 12,519/- per month, looking to the nature of work of the deceased. He also submits that no amount towards future prospects has been granted by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurance company, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on higher side, which needs to be modified suitably. He also submits that there is no scope for any enhancement in this appeal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal.

7. As regards the income of the deceased, initially the deceased was appointed on the post of Lecturer in the office of Jila Panchayat, Bastar, temporarily for a probation of two years and was earning a sum of Rs. 12,519/- which is evident from the documents i.e. income certificate and order of appointment i.e. vide Ex.P/9 and P/12. However, the Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence, held that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,519/- per month and by rounding off the figure assessed the income of the deceased to Rs. 12,500/- per month, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not reasonable as the income of the deceased should be considered the same as it was assessed earlier i.e. Rs. 12,519/-Therefore, I propose to reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,519/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,50,948/- per annum.

8. In so far as future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased as 37 years, however, erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects, who are aged below 40 years. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 37 years as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 40%.

9. So far as head consortium is concerned, the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance