IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, emphasizing accurate income assessment and additional compensation for future prospects and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 63/2012 titled as "Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,18,420/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 08.02.2012 as compensation in favour of the claimants.

2. CMA No. 6193/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas CMA No. 4205/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds.

3. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6193/2017:-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 25,460/- per month. Deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from wholesale and retail medical business. So, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs. 50,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects. As per the age of the deceased i.e. about 51 years, claimants are entitled to get 10% amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of Rs. 25,000/- to claimant No. 1 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- for each claimant) towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs. 15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

4. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4205/2017:-Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that witness of Insurance Company NAW-1 Shri. Naveen Upadhayay categorically stated that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was not mentioned in the Rojnamcha report. It was involved thereafter to get the compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that claimants failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the alleged vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 25,460/- per month as per the Income Tax Return. Claimants failed to prove the loss of income of the deceased after his death. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal wrongly awarded amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs. 15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal had calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of his Income Tax Returns (Ex.18) which clearly shows that annual income of the deceased was Rs. 3,05,516/- per annum. So, income of the deceased was rightly calculated as Rs. 25,460/- per month but the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects. As per the age of the deceased, claimants are entitled to get 10% amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal had awarded a very meager amount of Rs. 25,000/- to claimant No. 1 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- to each claimant) towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant. The Tribunal also wrongly awarded the amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards