The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions and interpretations related to the assessment of deceased's income, contributory negligence, and recomputation of the compensation amount based on the judgments of the Supreme Court and coordinate Bench of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Claim Case No. 107/1996 whereby the

3. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants on account of the death of Rajiya in the accident which occurred on 31.03.1996. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 and 3, on the face of it, suffer from error as the deceased was stated to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal had taken into consideration only Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income of the deceased while computing the award. He further submits that it came in the testimony of A.D.1 Smt. Leela that her husband was earning Rs.60 per day by performing the work of Masonry and was earning about Rs.2,000/- per month. In her statement, she also stated that the agricultural income of the deceased was Rs.1,000/- per month, therefore, learned counsel submits that the monthly income of the deceased is required to be enhanced while computing the award in the present case.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the deduction of the amount on account of the contributory negligence to the extent of 1/3 is also not justified as it is of common knowledge that in the rural areas of State of Rajasthan the persons, with or without the permission of the driver or the conductor, sit on the roof of the bus and, therefore, no fault can be found with them. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, relies upon the two judgments of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sohanlal and Ors.vs. Mangilal and Ors. decided on 03.12.2004 and in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Sarju Devi & Ors S.B. CMA No. 758/2007 decided on 01.12.2013.

6. Learned counsel further contended that no amount towards the future prospects and general damages was awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 do not suffer from any infirmity and the Tribunal fairly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. He submits that even as per the testimony of A.D.1 Smt. Leela, it is not clear that whether the deceased was holding any land from which the agricultural income could be derived, therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal had correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month.

8. He further submits that the Tribunal correctly deducted the amount towards the contributory negligence to the extent of 1/3 on account of the fact that the deceased, at the time of accident, was sitting on the roof of the bus. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Shanker Lal & Anr. vs. Nand Lal Meena & Ors,2006 RAR 280 and C.M. RSRTC vs. Durga Ram & Ors.,2010 1 MACD 117 Raj.

9. However, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company is in agreement with the submissions of the counsel for the appellants on the recalculation of the award in the terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi (supra).

10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 08.01.2002 as well as other relevant record of the case.

11. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue Nos.2 and 3 with respect to the income of the deceased is not required to be interfered with in view of the fact that no documentary evidence was p