Compensation for loss of income must consider future prospects and dependents, adjusting awarded amounts accordingly under established principles.

ORDER :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1 Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.156/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- to the claimants- appellants.

2. The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.37,22,000/-. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition, awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation in favour of the claimants- appellants.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2006, the claimants-appellants filed this miscellaneous appeal for suitable enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation by learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of this case are that on 23.10.2004, one Harnarayan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was travelling to his village when, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02-G-7439 drove it in a rash and negligent manner due to which Harnarayan got hit by the vehicle. The deceased was admitted in the hospital, where during the medical treatment he subsequently died.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on the date of accident.

6. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of future prospects, as the deceased was 45 years of age at time of accident and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for future prospects.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that there are 6 dependants on the deceased, however learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount under the head of personal expenses and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be suitably enhanced in favour of the claimants-appellants.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has wrongly applied multiplier of 15. Learned counsel further submitted that monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.100/- per day, whereas, on the date of accident minimum daily wages of an unskilled labour were Rs.73/- per day and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.2,190/-, hence, 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 in the impugned judgment has observed that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased, was working as a security guard and agricultural labour used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident.

11. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. This Court does not find any legal ground to interfere with this finding of learned Tribunal and hence, monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/-.

12. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to