1. - This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Award Passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 30.9.1994 in Claim Case No. 1314/1990 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- was awarded by way of compensation to the claimant-appellants on account of the death of Jagdish Saxena, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 5 who died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. RJR - 2629 on 12.9.1990.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that compensation awarded, is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced as the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that deceased was an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur as Naikedar and even though his age has been determined as 50 years at the time of accident, he had sufficiently long career ahead of him. In which his salary and income was liable to be increased on account of the increments/revision of pay-scales. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal ought to have taken into account the future prospects, as the stability of the job of the deceased and the amount of monthly income of Rs. 2,988/- that was arrived at by the learned Tribunal ought to have been notionally increased taking into account the future prospects as was done in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., reported in I (1994) ACC 346 (SC) : 1994 ACJ 1 wherein the actual income of the deceased was Rs. 1,032/-. Their Lordships held that on account of future prospects, the notional income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month for determination of the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the instant case, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8 only whereas according to the provisions contained in Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the case of persons falling within the age group of 50 to 55, multiplier of 11 has been prescribed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the awarded compensation is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference as the enhancement of the amount of compensation would amount to windfall and which is not the intention of the Legislature.

4. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties raised at the bar. In the first instance, so far as the question of income of the deceased is concerned, it is true that as per the finding of the learned Tribunal, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 2,988/- per month on the basis of the actual salary and employments being drawn at the time of the accident i.e., on 12.9.1990. However, as their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) the future prospects cannot be ignored, particularly, when the deceased was in a settled job with assured continuity of service. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) the actual income of Rs. 1,032/- was doubled by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the basis of the future prospects to Rs. 2,000/-, therefore, the same procedure must be adopted in the instant case.

5. In the instant case, the deceased was 50 years of age whereas in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) the deceased was 38 years of age, therefore, I am not in favour of taking the notional figure as twice of the actual emoluments being drawn. Nonetheless, the notional income of the deceased can be increased one and a half times i.e., Rs. 4,500/- (Rs. four thousand five hundred only). The amount of personal expenses to the extent of ⅓rd would, therefore, be liable to be deducted from the amount of Rs. 4,500/- leaving the dependency/contribution towards the family as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The amount of compensat