( 1 ). The appellants challenge the computation as well as quantum of compensation awarded to them by learned MACT in case No. 32/86 decided on 31. 1. 1990. The appellants are the parents of deceased, who was aged about 31 years at the time of his death In a road accident. The deceased was a practising Advocate.

( 2 ). The appellants filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of rupees five lakhs with interest. According to them the income of the deceased was about Rs. 3000. 00 per month at the time of his death and was increasing regularly. The respondent No. 1 was alleged to be the driver and respondents no. 2 and 3 the owners of the offending vehicle.

( 3 ) THE present appeal is confined to the prayer for enhancement of compensation. The findings given by the learned Tribunal in regard to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and the claim of the appellants they were the only LRs of the deceased have become final in as much as there is no cross appeal on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ). I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records of the case.

( 5 ). In support of their averments that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of his death and his income was about Rs. 3000. 00 per month, the appellant s case was supported by PWs 5 and 6, the colleagues of the deceased and pw8, the appellant No. 2, the father of the deceased. According to these witnesses the age of the deceased was about 31 years and his income was about Rs. 3000. 00 per month. However, they admitted that there was neither any documentary proof in support of the income nor the deceased was an income tax assessee. The appellant No. 2, the father of the deceased appearing as PW8 asserted that the deceased was paying him Rs. 2000. 00 per month. Learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence and material on record concluded that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 1500. 00 per month and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses held that the financial assistance from thy deceased to the appellants was only Rs. 1000. 00 per month. Applying a multiplier of ten the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000. 00. Interest @ 6 per cent per annum was ordered to be paid to the appellants on the awarded amount from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the award and @ 12 % per annum from the date of the judgement till realisation.

( 6 ). Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the assessment of the income of the deceased at rs. l500/- per month was erroneous and submits that there were no 9 rounds for disbelieving the evidence on record that the appellant s income was Rs. 3000. 00 per month. He submits that future income prospects also ought to have been taken into consideration. He also challenges the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal and submits that it was on extremely lower side. The interest @ 6 per cent per annum is stated to be unjust. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that in the year 1985-86 the income tax exemption was upto an income of Rs. 18000. 00 per annum and as such in the absence of income tax returns of the deceased the income could not have been taken beyond Rs. 1500. 00 per month. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a judgement of the Supreme Court of India in Donat Louis Machado and Ors. vs. L. Ravindra and ors. reported in II (2000) ACC 602 (SC) in which the prospects of advancement of carrier of the deceased and future increase in his income were taken into consideration for computing the financial loss to the parents and sister on account of death of deceased. The Court after finding that at the time of his death, the deceased, a Journalist aged about 31 years was earning Rs.