The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation for motor accidents, considering factors such as future prospects, multiplier, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.

1. - The instant appeals are directed against the common award dated 9.5.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in Claim Case Nos. 507/2011 and 508/2011.

2. The brief facts noticed are that on 15.6.2011 at about 10:30 P.M. near Beedwali Mataji temple in Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Ajmer, a Trailer bearing No. RJ01 GA 2810, being driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1 Ganni Khan, hit Gopal Singh and Shaitan Singh, who were on a motorcycle. It is alleged that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Trailer, the accident took place consequent thereto both, Gopal Singh and Shaitan Singh died. Challan was also filed and two claims petitions were filed by the dependents of the deceased persons.

3. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record and evidence led, allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 7,24,000/- in the case of deceased Gopal Singh, and to the extent of Rs. 6,72,000/- in the case of deceased Shaitan Singh, which are assailed herein.

4. Counsel for the appellants raised four points, namely (i) income of both the deceased were claimed at Rs. 8,000/- per month as they were young, hale and hearty, having valid driving license and deceased Gopal Singh was employed as river of Trolla and deceased Shaitan Singh was employed as driver of Tractor, and their employers have appeared in the witness-box to affirm about Rs. 8,000/- each being paid to them and the Tribunal has taken into consideration their income only at Rs. 4,000/- each, which is required to be enhanced. He also contends that even the minimum wage was Rs. 155/- per day in the year 2011 when the accident is said to have occurred, (ii) Since both the deceased were regularly employed as drivers of respective vehicles with regularity of income, in the light of several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, both the deceased being below the age of 40 years, 50% future prospects were required to be allowed while computing compensation. He contended that Hon'ble the Apex Court has time and again held that ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, driver etc. are also entitled for future prospects. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013(9) SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 667 : 2012(6) SCC 421 ; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways 2014(1) WLC (SC) Civil 333 : 2014(1) TAC 711 (SC) ; G. Dhanasekar v. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. 2014(1) WLC (SC) Civil 495 : 2014(1) A.C.C. 593 (SC) ; and Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, 2014(1) TAC 369 (SC) , and also judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors., 2014(1) ACC 37 (Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors., 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 ; Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No. 3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013 , and also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014 . (iii) He further contends that the multiplier ought to have been taken into consideration according to the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) He also contends that the amount allowed on account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and funeral expenses have either not been allowed and if allowed, are too nominal for the family members who have suffered heavily on account of the untimely demise of both the persons at a very young and tender age.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the evidence led go against the claim of appellants inasmuch as their employment as drivers has not been proved, though their employers have appeared before the witness-box but they have not kept any record of payments as drivers of Trolla and Tractor