1. The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-claimant, Mahaveer Prasad, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, vide judgment and award dated 28.10.2014 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 313/2010, titled Mahaveer Prasad v. Kishan Lal & Ors., whereby a sum of Rs. 3,52,648/- was awarded as compensation on account of the death of his son, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 10.11.2009. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation on the grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the deceased despite the income tax returns placed on record and did not adequately account for future prospects and other permissible heads of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 10.11.2009, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, aged about 28 years, died in a motor vehicular accident involving Truck No. RJ-07-G-7226, allegedly driven negligently by respondent No. 2, Hariram. The deceased was engaged in the business of papad and related goods and was stated to be earning approximately Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. The appellant, being the father of the deceased, instituted a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, seeking compensation for the untimely death of his son. In support of the claim, the appellant adduced oral evidence and produced documentary evidence, including income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2008–09 and 2009–10, reflecting his income. The learned Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 28.10.2014, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,316/- on the basis of minimum wages and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,52,648/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, particularly the assessment of the deceased's income and the computation of compensation, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the award.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,316/- despite the income tax returns reflecting his annual income at Rs. 1,48,682/- for the assessment year 2009–10. It is contended that the deceased was engaged in self-employment and, considering his age of 28 years, his income ought to have been assessed on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record, with an addition towards future prospects at the applicable rate, deduction towards personal expenses and application of the appropriate multiplier of 17. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and that the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under the relevant heads, together with interest. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and just compensation be awarded in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that no interference with the impugned award is warranted. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal is prayed for.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment and award, the evidence referred to in the claim proceedings, the income tax returns placed on record as Ex.15 and Ex.16, and the grounds urged in the present appeal. The principal controversy requiring consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,316/- despite the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant, and whether the compensation awarded on that basis represents just and r