The court considered the deceased's income from multiple sources and the lack of consideration for future prospects in enhancing the compensation, in line with the judgment of Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Award dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, District Churu in MACT Case No. 47/2016 whereby, an amount of Rs. 6,53,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of Kishna Ram.

3. Krishan Kumar in the accident which occurred on 10.07.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the lower side and therefore, the same is required to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 4 has taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- p.m. whereas, the deceased was having a license for driving the transport vehicle. He was having two tractors which were being used in the agriculture work and the deceased was also involved in the farming activities. Thus, the income earned per month by the deceased was much beyond the income assessed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that the same is required to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that no amount has been awarded towards the future prospects in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim-petition of the appellants has correctly taken into consideration the entire evidence and after evaluating the same has passed the Judgment and Award dated 27.09.2019. He further submits that no evidence with respect to the loss of income from two tractors which were owned by him has been produced before the Tribunal on account of the death of Kishna Ram @ Krishan Kumar. He further submits that no documentary evidence has been placed on record showing the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the amount on account of the future prospects to the tune of 10% is required to be enhanced in the light of the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra).

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the Judgment and Award dated 27.09.2017 along with the relevant record of the case.

7. From perusal of the findings of the Tribunal qua Issue No. 4 with respect to the income of the deceased shows that the same is on the lower side. It has been brought on record that the deceased was performing the work of a driver, he was having two tractors which were being used for the agricultural purposes and was having the land on which farming activities were also performed by the deceased and his family members. In these circumstances, the deceased was earning the income from three sources. Therefore, the income of deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 6,000/- p.m. appears to be on the lower side and this Court feels that the income of the deceased should have been computed to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Considering the fact that no amount towards the future prospects has been awarded in the present case, therefore an amount to the tune of 10% is required to be awarded in the light of the Judgment Pranay Sethi (supra).Admittedly, after the demise of the deceased, the tractors remained intact with the family and the farming activities are still undertaken by the other family members. But this Court feels that the death of Kishnaram @ Krishan Kumar will considerably reduce the earning capacity on account of the work undertaken by him. Taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/-, the amount is required to be recomputed keeping the factors employed by the Tribunal as under:-