1. - This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and judgment dated 17- 10-2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali.

2. The facts in short are that the accident is stated to have occurred on 12-11-2001. In the said accident. Narpat Singh and Ghisa Ram died whereas Guman Singh suffered injuries. Narpat Singh was unmarried. How- ever, the other legal heirs of Narpat Singh filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali. A total amount of Rs. 2,69,000/- was awarded to the claimants of deceased Narpat Singh. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement.

3. The first argument of the learned counsel for the claimants while praying for enhancement is that the deceased Narpat Singh was a driver. He was earning Rs. 3,000/- as salary. Besides, his job as driver, he was earning Rs. 1000/- by undertaking the work in agricultural field but the Tribunal while accepting the salary certificate as driver, did not take into consideration the income earned by him from agriculture.

4. The second argument is with respect to the future enhancement. It is contended that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects. Reliance was placed on the various judgments of the Apex Court to substantiate the argument that while calculating the income of the deceased, the future increase in the income should have also been taken into consideration.

5. The third ground for enhancement is based on the rate of deduction calculated by the Tribunal. It is contended that 50% deduction as the amount spent by the deceased on himself is on the higher side. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 .

6. The last argument raised is that while applying multiplier, age of the deceased should be taken into consideration and not of the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the claimants are not entitled for enhancement as no evidence was produced by them that the deceased was doing the agriculture work. The Tribunal had therefore rightly rejected the plea of the claimants that deceased was engaged in business of farming. It is further contended that the deceased being a bachelor, the deduction of 50% was rightly made as the amount spent by the deceased on him1 self. It is further stated, the future increase in the income was rightly not granted as the deceased was a bachelor and the remaining members of the family were not expected to remain dependent on the deceased. It was also contended that as per Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier of 13 was rightly added as the age of the father was more than 47 years.

8. Heard.With respect to the first argument that the income earned by the deceased on account of doing agriculture work should have been considered while calculating the income, has no merit. The only evidence produced by the claimants is the statement of employer who had verified that the deceased was his driver and the statement of the claimant PW-1, the father himself. The statement of the employer is not substantiated by any other documentary evidence qua the agriculture income of the deceased. Thus, the same in itself is not sufficient to establish that-the deceased was engaged in the business of farming. Thus, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal to this effect.

9. The second argument that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the future income on account of the future prospects, carries weight. The deceased was a driver. He was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. He was an able bodied person. The deceased was yet to achieve maximum potential in his earning capacity. His salary was bound to be increased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in MACD 2012 (SC) 97 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 was pleased