JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The challenge has been given to the judgment dated 31.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Surat in M.A.C.P. No. 916 of 1989.

2. Advocate Mr. Piyush Trivedi for Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal has erred by not granting prospective rise in income. Mr. Trivedi submitted that income was required to be considered in right perspective, and the multiplier, as laid down in case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, is required to be followed.

3. Advocate Mr. Trivedi further submitted that consortium loss has not been assessed by the Tribunal, which required to be granted to the dependents as per judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) SCC 130 : 2018 ACJ 2782.

4. Per contra, Mr. G.C. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered actual income of the deceased as Rs.850/- however, no evidence has been produced before the Tribunal to consider the aspect of rise in income.

5. The deceased was working as a conductor on Truck No. GRW-3066, and t