JUDGMENT :

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 20.03.2002 passed in M.A.C. Case No.479/1997 on the file of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, wherein and whereby the claim of the appellants seeking compensation against the respondents was partly allowed holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,16,000/- with interest.

2. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not fixed the proper monthly wages and the wages fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and such fixation is contrary to even the minimum wages prevaling on the date of accident. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also on the lower side and he further contends that other benefits granted under the conventional heads were also not proper and future prospects were also not taken into consideration while fixing the compensation. It is also contended that the deduction towards personal expenses was not properly fixed depending on the number of dependents. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was responsible for the accident and wrongly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In these circumstances, he seeks enhancement of the compensation.

4. None appeared and there is no representation for the respondents.

5. Dealing with the contention of contributory negligence, the Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence of 50% on the driver of the tractor. The accident reflects that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he fell down while the tractor was in moving condition. It was not the case that the tractor was overturned so that the negligence can only be attributed to the driver of the tractor. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the driver of the tractor was not examined and the Tribunal only fixed the contributory negligence on the basis of assumption. According to him, such approach of the Tribunal was incorrect. The accident itself speaks about how the deceased fell down. He fell down from the moving tractor and the place where he sat itself indicates that he was careless in occupying the position in a moving tractor by sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, which is not meant to sit on. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the manner in which the accident occurred and fixation of the contributory negligence was rightly made by the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record. Such findings require no interference.

6. Dealing with the quantum of compensation, the evidence shows that the deceased was working as a labourer and the Tribunal fixed his monthly wages as Rs.1000/-. The year of the accident is 1997. The minimum wages prevailing in 1995 was Rs.32/-and revision was done in 1998 enhancing the minimum wages of unskilled labour from Rs.32/-to Rs.44/-. There is a consistent increase of Rs.4/-for every year in fixation of minimum wages but as on date of 1997, the minimum wages comes to Rs.40/-and accordingly, the monthly wages comes to Rs.1200/-. The income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.1200/- per month.

7. The age of the deceased was fixed as 40 years and such fixation was done on the basis of Postmortem Report (Ex.10). Therefore, such findings cannot be interfered.

8. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards future prospects. The deceased was aged below 40 years and he was self-employed. Therefore, there ought to be an addition of 40% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. 40% of the monthly income of Rs.1200 comes to Rs.480/-. Accordingly, the total monthly income comes to Rs.1200 + Rs.480= Rs.1680/-and annual income of the deceased is assessed as 1680 X 12 =Rs.