The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the assessment of income, future prospects, consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, as well as the joint and several liability of the driver, owner, and Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT :

1. As the appeal and cross-objection involve common question of facts and law, they are being decided by the instant common order.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants – claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 04.11.2011 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.978/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants') and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- in favour of the claimants.

3. The claimants submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.58,04,000/-. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment by awarding the compensation on a lower side. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased only at Rs.3510/-per month, whereas the deceased by doing the work of loading and unloading stones was earning Rs.9,000/- per month.

5. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not awarding future prospects, as the deceased was 46 years of age at time of accident and he was self employed and, therefore, the claimants are entitled for 25% future prospects.

6. Learned counsel argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4 from the income of the deceased, as the appellant Nos.1 to 5 are dependents upon deceased – Nathuram and, therefore, 1/5 ought to be deducted from the income of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest @ 7% per annum. It is settled law that interest on the compensation amount ought to have been awarded at least @ 12% per annum.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and award and contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Learned Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been produced to prove that the deceased, by doing the work of loading and unloading of stones was earning Rs.9,000/-per month at the time of accident. Therefore, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as per the daily wages i.e. Rs.135/-, applicable on the date of incident (09.04.2009) and calculated his monthly income as Rs.3510/- (135x26).

11. In the opinion of this Court, the income of the deceased should have been considered for 30 days not for 26 days. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal is to be modified in this regard and the income of the deceased is assessed to be 4050 per month (135x30). Learned Tribunal has not added any amount to the income of the deceased under the head of future prospects, which was to be done in the light of judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

12. In view of the abovementioned discussions and considering to the age of the deceased to be 46 years at the time of incident, an increment of 25% of the income for the future prospects, as per the direction given in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is also to be made. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.4050 (135 X 30) + 25% (Rs.1012/-) for future prospects = Rs.5062/-per month for the purpose of calculating the loss of income.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was survived by his wife and four children. All the five persons were living in the same house as family with the deceased and, therefore, 1/4 part from the income of the deceased has rightly been deducted under t