JUDGMENT :

1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara, in MACT Claim No.285/2018 (310/2017) whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.12,94,712/- as compensation to the appellants-claimants.

2. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal are enumerated herein below :

4. The appellants-claimants are dependents of Makbul Mansuri, who was a taxi driver and he expired in a road accident on 21.01.2017. The appellants-claimants filed the Claim Application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.77,10,000/- by impleading United India Insurance Company (Insurer), Udailal (Owner of the vehicle) and Satyanarayan (Driver of the vehicle) as respondents Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively. An FIR No.08/2017 to this effect was also registered at the Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.12,94,712/- as compensation to the appellant-claimants towards the death of Makbul Mansuri.

5. The bone contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the impugned award suffers from gross illegality inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the factum of monthly income of the deceased as well as did not take into account the component of rise in income of the deceased by future prospects while evaluating the compensation awardable to the claimants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years of age and was drawing a salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased Makbul Mansuri was working as a taxi driver and he was having a valid and effective driving licence. The evidence to this effect has also been adduced in the trial. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,382/- instead of Rs.5,902/- which is the minimum wage scale as applicable in the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time. He further submits that there is a specific pleading in the claim petition and then reiteraed the same in evidence. Even in cross-examination, Rashida Bee (AW/1), in response to the question asked by the respondents, has replied that her husband was driving a vehicle of owner of Aradhana Tent House. It is further submitted that as per the schedule of Minimum Wages applicable in Rajasthan, the minimum wage for a skilled person would be Rs.5,902/- per month. Thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have calculated monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,902/- per month.

7. As per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166, it was held that the rationale behind the awarding of future prospects is therefore no longer merely about the type of profession, whether permanent or otherwise, although the percentage awarded is still dependent on the same. The awarding of future prospects is now a part of the duty of the Court to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation, the quest of individuals to better their circumstances and those of their loved ones, rising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of work.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that if sufficient evidence is not p