The central legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and loss of affection under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the need for a reasonable guess in the absence of proof of income and the consideration of future income prospects.

R. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants have challenged the award dated 11. 11. 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) whereby an award of Rs. 3,12,000 has been passed for the death of Sharawan Kumar to the claimants.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 21. 4. 1999, along with others, Sharawan kumar was travelling in a jeep. As soon as the jeep reached near the village Kharwa, a tanker bearing registration No. RJ 06-G 1442, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came and collided with the said jeep. Consequently, four persons had died including Sharawan Kumar. Since the aged parents, the widow, the minor children were suddenly left without a breadwinner, they filed a claim petition along with others. Since Sharawan Kumar had earlier lost his brother, Mishri Lal, even his widow and minor children were financially dependent on Sharawan Kumar. Hence, they also joined as claimants in the claim petition. For the death of Sharawan kumar, the claimants sought a compensation of Rs. 14,10,000. In order to prove their case the claimants examined seven witnesses and submitted a large number of documents. On the other hand, the non claimants, neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to pass an award in favour of the claimants as aforementioned. Since the claimants are still aggrieved by the said award, they have filed the present appeal before us.

( 3 ) MR. J. P Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that the claimants had clearly stated that deceased was earning Rs. 150 per day from his work in bardana (sale of jute bags ). Yet, without assigning any reason, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs. 2,500 per month. Hence, the income has been wrongly calculated by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects into consideration. The income of the deceased was bound to increase in the future, yet his income has not been increased. The deceased was aged 45 years; he would have continued to work for at least fifteen years. His income would have increased. But, learned Tribunal has ignored this fact. Thirdly, compensation paid under the head loss of consortium and under loss of love and affection is only Rs. 5,000 for a family of 11 persons, including the aged parents, the widow, the children, the nephew and niece who were dependent on the deceased.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that when there is no evidence about the income of the deceased, the income should be calculated on a notional basis. Learned Tribunal should have taken the notional of Rs. 15,000 as the basis of the calculation. Secondly, the award is just and fair. Therefore, he has supported the impugned award.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award.

( 6 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the deceased had been doing the work of bardana. According to his wife, he was earning Rs. 150 per day. Considering the fact that the deceased was a blue-collar worker, that such persons would be poor and illiterate, who would not be given any documents by the employer showing their income, it is unrealistic to expect such persons to produce some proof of the income of the deceased. The tribunal in such a case is required to make an intelligent and reasonable guess. In the absence of any proof, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the income to be rs. 2,500 per month.

( 7 ) ONCE there is evidence of the fact that the deceased was working, the learned Tribunal can safely presume that the deceased was having an income. Item 6 of the Second Schedule attached to the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act for short) speaks of "notional income for compensation to those who had no income prio