1. On 4th December, 2000, a police bus bearing No. JK 02J-0667 carrying police personnel from Srinagar to Jammu, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver-Constable, Prem Singh, met with an accident at Anokhi Fall Battery Chasma, Ramban. The accident led to death of a number of police personnel including Constables - Pradeep Kumar Koui, Ramesh Kumar Bhat, Ramesh Kumar Saproo, Sanjay Kumar Bhat and Kamalji Raina - all bachelors in the age group of 22 - 28 years. The dependants of aforementioned deceased police personnel filed claim petitions in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu registered as Claim Petitions 568, 569, 570, 571 and 573. The dependants claimed an amount of Rs.20,24,328/-, Rs.20,49,988/-, Rs.22,49,968/-, Rs.22,65,140. and Rs.20,45,056/- on account of loss of dependency, damages in lieu of infringement of right to life, damages in lieu of pain, suffering and mental agony of the dependants, funeral expenses and miscel­laneous expenses respectively. 2. The Tribunal vide award dated 30th April, 2008 disposed of all five claim petitions and as against the claimed amounts, awarded amount of Rs.2,42,900/-, Rs. 2,37,224/- Rs.2,37,224/-, Rs. 2,32,208/-, and Rs. 2,42,900/- to the claimants respectively. 3. The claimants are aggrieved of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the grounds that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 2/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal expenditure and taken into consid­eration only 1/3rd income of the deceased to work out the compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal is said to have wrongly applied the multiplier of 11, while assessing the compensation taken into consideration the age of dependants/claimants and ignoring age of the deceased. The appellants also find fault with the award impugned in the appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation on account of loss of love and affection, loss of estate and awarded meagre amount of Rs.2000/- on account of funeral expenses. The appel­lants are also aggrieved that the Tribunal failed to take into account future prospects of the deceased like periodic, rise in pay, while computing compensation payable to the appellants. The appellants pray that award amount be raised to Rs.13,13,784/-, Rs.12,97,056/-,Rs.13,39,824/-,Rs.13,23,408/-, Rs.13,57,536/- with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till payment of the award amount. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The appellants pray that award amount be raised to Rs.13,13,784/-, Rs.12,97,056/-,Rs.13,39,824/-,Rs.13,23,408/-, Rs.13,57,536/- with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till payment of the award amount. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The Civil First Miscellaneous Appeals CIMA 20/2009, 25/2009, 26/2009, 27/2009 and 262/2008, are destined to succeed for the following reasons:- (1) The Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the deceased would have spent 2/3rd of their income on their personal expenditure and con­tributed only 1/3rd of the income to the family kitty. Once dependency of the claimants on the deceased was established, there was no reason for the Tribunal to opine that the deceased would have spent 2/3rd income on their personal expenditure. The part of the income of deceased to be deducted on account of personal expenditure in terms of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, is to be restricted to 1/3rd of the income of the deceased unless of course evidence is brought on file to prove at because of any special circumstances, the deceased would have spent more than 1/3rd of his income towards maintaining himself had he been alive. In the present case the deceased were bachelors. The view taken by Tribunal that where the deceased is bachelor and the dependants on the deceased are his parents and siblings only 1/3rd of the income is to be held to go to the dependants is in conflict with the settled legal position and thus not sustainable. In Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another 2008 AIR SCW 5040, the Supreme Court did not approve deduc­tion of 50% of the income of bachelor deceased on account of personal expenditure directed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. The Court observed:- "We are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determin­ing the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we asses that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family". 6. The law laid down was followed in Kuldeep Singh and another v. Jagbir Singh and others (2009) Acci. Therefore, determin­ing the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we asses that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family". 6. The law laid down was followed in Kuldeep Singh and another v. Jagbir Singh and others (2009) Acci. C.R. 339 (J&K): 2009 (1) JKJ HC-319. The Court held that deduction of 2/3rd of income of the deceased on account of personal expenditure was unjustified and only 1/3rd of income, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was required to be deducted. The Court observed: "the reduction of amount of compensation by more than 1/3rd may not be permissible unless, however, a specific case therefor had been set up and was made out on the basis of the substantial evidence and justifying reasons in support thereof". 7. The Apex Court reiterated law on the subject in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. The Court tracing the background in which it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head - personal and living expenses of the deceased, held that the difficulty in working out the actual expenses of the deceased led to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income, if the deceased was married and one half (50%) of the income, if deceased was bachelor. This practice, the Court held was evolved ou t of experience, logic and convenience. 8. The Tribunal for one or the other reason did not notice that all five deceased were permanent Government employees and that there would have been periodic increase in their income over the years. In Sarala Verma's Case (Supra), Supreme Court approved an addition of 50 % of the actual salary on account of future prospects while working out income of the deceased where deceased had perma­nent job and was below 40 years. In the present case all the deceased were below 40 years, had a permanent job and the Tribunal ought to have allowed an increase of 50 % of the salary as future prospects, added it to the income of the deceased at the time of death and thereafter, allowed deductions on account of personal expenses. In the present case all the deceased were below 40 years, had a permanent job and the Tribunal ought to have allowed an increase of 50 % of the salary as future prospects, added it to the income of the deceased at the time of death and thereafter, allowed deductions on account of personal expenses. The Tribunal by not adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased at the time of death erred, rendering the awards as regards quantum of compensation awarded liable to be set aside. 9. The Tribunal awarded paltry amount of Rs.2000/- on account of funeral expenses. The amount awarded is meagre, unrealistic and awarded oblivious to price index and diminishing rupee value. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act incorporates guidelines to be observed by the Tribunal, while assessing compensation. However, the Tribunal taking notice of all relevant factors, is not precluded from, making departure from the suggested compensation on different counts laid down in the Second Schedule wherever facts and circumstances, so require. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the ground of loss of estate, whereas in terms of law laid down in Sarala Verma's Case (Supra), a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate though the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act recommends Rs.2,500/- on said counts. 10. It is pertinent to point out that though the memoranda of appeals have also questioned the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, yet during the course of argu­ments advanced by learned counsel, the said ground was not pressed. However, independent of the stand of learned counsel in the appeals, the Tribunal in the peculiar circumstances of the case, while deciding on the multiplier to be applied, has rightly taken into consideration the age of dependants. In all the cases, the dependants of the deceased are their parents who have crossed 60 years and the siblings have crossed the age of majority. Furthermore, appellants grievance that no compensation was granted on account of loss of love and affection, pain suffering or hardship is misplaced inasmuch as no such compensation is to be awarded as held in Sarala Verma's Case (Supra), to the legal heirs of the deceased. 11. Furthermore, appellants grievance that no compensation was granted on account of loss of love and affection, pain suffering or hardship is misplaced inasmuch as no such compensation is to be awarded as held in Sarala Verma's Case (Supra), to the legal heirs of the deceased. 11. For the reasons discussed above all the five Civil First Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the awards made by the Tribunal are modified as under:- CIMA No 25/09 The monthly income of the deceased, taking into account 50% of the income at the time of death reflecting future prospects, is assessed at Rs.8,209/- and after deducting 50% income on account of personal expenses, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is held to be as Rs.5,41,860/-. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amovint of Rs.5,51,860/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. CIMA No 27/09 The monthly income of the deceased, taking into account 50% of the income at the time of death reflecting future prospects, is assessed monthly Rs.8,020/- and after deducting 50% income on account of personal expenses, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is held to be as Rs.5,29,320/-. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,39,320/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. CIMA No 26/09 The monthly income of the deceased, taking into account 50% of the income at the time of death reflecting future prospects, is assessed monthly Rs.8,020/- and after deducting 50% income on account of personal expenses, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is held to be as Rs.5,29,320/-. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,39,320/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,39,320/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. CIMA No 20/09 The monthly income of the deceased, taking into account 50% of the income at the time of death reflecting future prospects, is assessed monthly Rs.7,848/- and after deducting 50% income on account of personal expenses, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is held to be as Rs.5,17,968/-. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs. 5000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,27,968/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. CIMA No 262/08 The monthly income of the deceased, taking into account 50% of the income at the time of death reflecting future prospects, is assessed at Rs.8,209/- and after deducting 50% income on account of personal expenses, the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is held to be as Rs.5,41,860/-. The appellants are further awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate. The appellants are thus entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,51,860/- from the respondents without any change in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The decree sheets be drawn up. 50 % of the enhanced amount Rs.1,50,480/-, Rs. 1,47,048/-, Rs. 1,47,048/-, Rs. 1,43,880/- Rs.1,50,480/- shall be kept in FDR for a period of three years in the name of the appellants/claimants and rest of the enhanced amount shall pay forthwith to the appellants.