averred that the deceased was working in Dubai and drawing AED 16,500/- per month, which is equivalent to Rs.2,39,250/-, however, the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased with cogent evidence. Exhibit R2-certified copy of the deposition of Noor Mohammed, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased states that the deceased was running Fancy stores. In that view of the matter, in the absence of the relevant document to prove the income of the deceased, as per the Lok Adalat chart, the notional income with relevance to the accident of the year 2005, would be Rs.5,000/- per month and the same is taken in this appeal. Age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 47 years. In terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be 13. As per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. There are four dependents, hence, the appropriate deduction would be one-fourth towards the
