R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded. The grounds urged are two fold; first, that the tribunal ignored the contention, and the evidence, that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as an employee with a shopkeeper, and second, that the possibility of future prospects have not been factored in.

2. I have gone through the impugned judgment with assistance of the learned counsel but find no substance in the contentions urged. It is mentioned (in para 14) of the impugned judgment that the claimants through PW1 were unable to bring on record any substantive proof of income of the deceased being to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from the private employment. Thus, the tribunal was constrained to go by the notional income on the basis of minimum wages for unskilled workman at the relevant point of time. No fault can be found with said approach.

3. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was “self employed” or was working on a “fixed sala