Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (for short 'the Tribunal') vide impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 35/2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,38,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.10.2004 at about 10:45 am Ladhuram was driving the truck No.RJ 04/G 3080. When he reached at Mahadev Petrol Pump, Trailer No.MH 06/K 6305 came from wrong side with high speed and hit the truck, as a result of which Ladhuram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the spot. In the claim petition it was stated that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle accident took place. FIR of the said accident was registered at Sadar Police Station, Barmer. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their separate reply and denied the contents of the claim petition. The respondent-Insurance Company took a specific objection in its reply that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed four issues including relief. The appellants-claimants got examined three witnesses. No witness was produced on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment and award dated 18.08.2007 awarded a compensation of Rs.4,38,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation.

3. Counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and needs to be enhanced as claimed in the claim petition. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has failed to read and consider the evidence in its right, legal perspective. Besides, the learned Tribunal has further erred in not considering the positive evidence adduced in support of the claim by the claimants/appellants which clearly establishes that the amount claimed by the claimants/appellants was genuine. it is admitted that the accident took place on 09.10.2004 in which Laduram, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.4 & 5 received various injuries consequent to which he succumbed on the spot. Learned Tribunal has grossly erred in law and facts as well while quantifying the quantum of compensation in awarding such a meager amount of award in favour of claimants/appellants. No rebuttal has been given by the respondents regarding the monthly/yearly income of deceased Ladhuram. There was no occasion on the part of the learned Tribunal to have discarded the oral as well as documentary evidence revealing through Ex.21 to Ex.29 by the claimants/appellants.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimants/appellants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and submitted that in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors. [2005 ACJ 1520] as regard to determination of future prospectus, due to divergent opinion matter is pending before the Larger Bench.

5. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award as also material available on record.

6. In the matter at hand the only question is to be decided with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that deceased Ladhuram was self employed person. In the claim petition, it has been state