JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal for enhancement of compensation amount has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Award dated 23.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhinmal in M.A.C. Case No. 46/2003 whereby, an amount of Rs. 98,800/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the appellants on account of death of Smt. Chouthi in the accident which occurred on 04.11.2002.

2. A claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads on account of death of Smt. Chouthi in the accident which took place on 04.11.2002.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the appellants awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 98,800/- under various heads in favour of the appellants/claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim-petition of the appellants awarded a meager sum as compensation in their favour. He further submits that the findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are erroneous as the notional income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 800/- per month only. He further submits that in the testimony of AW-1 Visa Ram, it was stated that Smt. Chouthi was helping the family in the agricultural work besides, taking care of the household work of the appellants. After death of Smt. Chouthi, the family is taking the services of one person who is being paid the amount for helping them in the agricultural work. Learned counsel further submits that at least Rs. 3000/- should have been taken into consideration as the notional income of the deceased Smt. Chouthi. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants towards the future prospects of the deceased in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157. He, therefore, prays that the amount of compensation in the present case may be recomputed and enhanced suitably.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal are perfectly just and proper as the same have been recorded after evaluating the evidence which is brought on record. He further submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 do not suffer from any error as no evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased has been produced on record. However, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants on the aspect of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the Judgment and Award dated 23.08.2004 as well as the other relevant record of the case.

7. The Tribunal has recorded a finding on Issue No. 2 that Rs. 800/- will be an amount which can be taken as notional monthly income of the deceased Chouthi. However, the Tribunal has not stated the reasons for the same. It was projected before the Tribunal that the deceased Chouthi was helping the family in the agricultural work. She was also taking care of all the household work of the claimants/appellants, which is evident from the testimony of AW-1 Visa Ram. The respondents in their crossexamination has not been able to discredit the testimony of this witness before the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased should be assessed as Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) per month. Since, no loss of future prospects has been taken into consideration in light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the award in the present case is recomputed as under:-