The court held that the Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of the deceased's income for personal expenses and in not considering the future prospects of his income.

1. - Against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2003 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in Claim Case No.41/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation in favour of the claimants and fastened the liability of paying the amount of compensation upon the appellants-owners and respondent No.10 - Driver of the vehicle, Appeal No.910/2004 has been preferred by the appellant-owners of the vehicle and Appeal No.356/2005 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of both these appeals are that Sawai Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 8 has died in an accident took place on 26.10.2000. It was alleged that when the deceased Sawai Singh, along with his brother AW.2 Mohan Singh, was proceeding towards his village on Bhiyand Road, suddenly a truck No.RJ19-G-4890 came from opposite direction and collided with Moped M-80 bearing No.RJ15-M-466, which was being driven by the deceased - Sawai Singh. In that forehead collision, Sawai Singh died.

3. A claim petition was preferred on behalf of the respondent-claimants before the Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 3, has held that the truck No.RJ19-G- 4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram, who was not holding any valid licence and, therefore, the insurance company, with which the truck was insured, is not liable for payment of any compensation and held the appellants in appeal No.910/2004and the driver of the truck liable for payment of compensation. While deciding Issue No.2 and assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- under the head of 'loss of income' after deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has awarded certain amounts under different heads and as such a total compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- has been awarded.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants in Appeal No.910/2004 has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4, and has argued that while deciding the Issue No.1 against the appellants, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of AW.2 Mohan Singh, whereas from bare perusal of the statement of Mohan Singh, it has not been proved that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by Anopa Ram. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that from the statements of NAW.2 Anopa Ram, NAW.3/1 Kundan Lal and NAW.3/2 Deepa Ram, it is clear that at the time of accident, the vehicle truck No.RJ19-G-4890 was being driven by NAW.3/2 Deepa Ram, who was holding a valid licence, however, the learned Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the statements of Anopa Ram, Kundal Lal and Deepa Ram and wrongly decided the Issue No.4 in favour of Insurance Company. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company had not placed any material on record to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants in respect of the Issue No.4 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the findings given by the Tribunal on Issue No.4 are absolutely perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. While arguing the Appeal No.356/2005 on behalf of the appellant-claimants, the learned counsel Mr B.L.Tiwari has contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month only, whereas the claimants have adduced evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in deducting ⅓rd of the income of the deceased against his