1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1176/2007 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1176/2007 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. Date : 10.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Mukesh Patodia, for the appellant. Mr.TRS Sodha ) for the respondents. Mr.Manoj Bohra ) - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura in MACT Case No.35/2006 vide judgment and award dated 13.11.2006. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal by award dated 13.11.2006 has awarded less amount to the claimants/appellants inspite of the fact that the appellants proved that because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1, victim Farukh Mohammed died. It is also not in dispute that the victim was of the age of 25 years only. As per the statement of victim's wife AW1 Jubeda, her husband was 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1176/2007 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. engaged in driving the heavy vehicle and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as well as Rs.100/- as allowance over salary. The deceased had 20 bighas agriculture land from which he was earning Rs.25000-30000/-. The deceased left one son and one daughter with the age of 3½ and 1½ years. The deceased parents are old and are doing no work. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the cross examination, the wife of deceased admitted that he did not produce the jamabandi of agriculture land and further admitted that she had no knowledge that under whose employment, the deceased was working as driver. In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the compensation awarded is just and proper. AW1 Jubeda, wife of victim, clearly stated that her husband was aged 25 years and was knowing driving and was earning salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. A lady may not know who is employer of her husband provided she is living in a small village and may not have the courage to enquire about it or there may be many reasons for not enquiring about the same in young age of her husband. The children of the deceased and AW1 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1176/2007 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. Jubeda were of the age of 3½ and 1½ years respectively, therefore, it is clear that a young person died in the accident because of fault of the driver of the vehicle in question and the assessment of the income by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.30000/- per annum appears to be low. Looking to the age and particularly having the driving license with him though it was not of heavy vehicle, it appears that he had some financial standing and, therefore, he had driving licence also while living in the small village. It is true that in absence of reliable documentary evidence, the assessment of the income of the deceased is a difficult task but looking to the present situation, the assessment of income at Rs.30000/- per annum is too low. In view of the above reason, it is held that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted Rs.10,000/- out of the total income of the deceased. The Tribunal further committed error while not assessing the future prospects of the income of the deceased and 1/3rd of the amount can be added in the income of the deceased on account of the future income. The deduction at the rate of 30% out of the total income of the deceased on his own expenditure appears to be reasonable deduction. In view of the above reasons, the total 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1176/2007 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. compensation comes to be 30000 x 18 = Rs.5,40,000/- in place of Rs.3,60,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Rest amount awarded is maintained. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the amount of claim is enhanced from Rs.3,81,000/- to Rs.5,61,000/-. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya