JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this appeal, the appellants have prayed for enhancement of quantum of compensation, awarded in M.V. Claim Case No. 10/2011 by the District Judge-II-cum-MACT (Tribunal), Latehar vide order dated 24th January, 2018, whereby, an amount of Rs.3,04,000/-has been awarded as compensation.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that while assessing the compensation, the income of the deceased was considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which is notional income, though the claimants have led their evidences that the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He submits that the respondent have not disputed the fact that the deceased was a motor mechanic and income of the deceased have not been controverted. He further submits that in terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation on account of future prospect. He submits that the deceased, aged about 22 years at the time of death, was self employed person and in that view 40% enhancement should have been awarded on account of future prospect. He also submits that Rs.30,000/- has been granted in terms of loss of estate and funeral expenses. He further submits that compensation on account of loss of consortium was not granted, which the claimants are entitled to receive.

4. Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that the claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased and thus, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. So far as consortium is concerned, he submits that consortium is awarded to the spouses, but in this case, the deceased was unmarried so not entitled to receive any amount under the aforesaid head. So far as future prospect is concerned, he further submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court will govern the issue.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The deceased, aged about 22 years, died in accident involving a Truck bearing registration No. 38-K-0250. The deceased was unmarried. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Motorcycle Mechanic. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, stated in her evidence that the deceased was a matriculate and was a motorcycle mechanic. This fact has also been narrated by the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the impugned award. There is no evidence contrary, to disbelieve the statement of the mother of the deceased that the deceased was a motor mechanic. The Insurance Company did not cross-examine on this issue. The tribunal held that there is no documentary evidence which suggest that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, thus the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The facts of the case suggest that the deceased was looking after his parents and it can be said that he was working as Motorcycle mechanic. Motorcycle mechanic must earn Rs.4,000/- per month and thus Rs.4,000/- per month is taken to be the income of the deceased, which cannot be said to be on much higher side. Thus, this Court feels that Rs.4,000/- per month should be the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation.

6. Admittedly, the deceased, aged about 22 years, was unmarried, thus 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted as expenses incurred upon himself. The multiplier which the Tribunal has applied is correct, which is 18 in this case.

7. So far as enhancement on account of future prospect is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held that in the case of self employe