RAFIQ, J.—For stated reasons, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed. Appeal is heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited against award dated 19.11.2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.998/2007. Learned Tribunal by aforesaid award, has allowed claim petition filed by claimants awarding compensation of Rs.5,98,000/- in a death case. 3. Smt. Manju Jain, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that award is excessive and suffered from various illegalities and, therefore, appeal should be admitted and allowed suitably reducing the quantum of compensation. 4. It is contended that at relevant point of time deceased was 29 years of age and, therefore, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), multiplier of 17 should have been adopted rather than 18 adopted by learned Tribunal. 5. Second contention is that there was no definite proof that deceased was working as electrician and, therefore, his monthly income cannot be determined at Rs.3,510/- and, in doing so, learned Tribunal committed illegality by relying on minimum wages meant for skilled labour in the year 2011, which is Rs.135/- per day. 6. Thirdly, learned counsel argued that it was for the deceased to take extra care while crossing the road and evidence shows that accident took place near iron divider while crossing the road at Transport Nagar Circle in front of PWD office and since speeding vehicle was coming on the road and the accident has taken place thereby, it proves that deceased was not careful enough while crossing the road. 7. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for appellant in the light of discussions made by learned Tribunal in impugned award and findings recorded on various issues therein. Learned Tribunal, on issue no.4, has discussed the evidence of AW-1 Vimla Sharma, widow of deceased, and also AW-3 Krishna Kumar Yadav, a constable in traffic police posted at Transport Nagar crossing at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal, on issue no.4, has discussed the evidence of AW-1 Vimla Sharma, widow of deceased, and also AW-3 Krishna Kumar Yadav, a constable in traffic police posted at Transport Nagar crossing at the time of accident. The said constable proved that deceased was crossing the road from Jawahar Nagar side towards PWD office and a truck coming from Galta Gate side on Delhi road, being driven by driver in rash and negligent manner, hit him while turning towards Agra road and crushed his head from rear tyres. He followed the truck and intercepted it. AW-1, the wife has stated that her husband was an electrician and used to earn a sum of Rs.9000/- per month. AW-12 Anil Kumar Somani appeared in witness box and stated that deceased was lastly employed by him on monthly salary of Rs.6000/- and outstanding salary of three months was paid to his widow by an account payee cheque of Rs.18000/-. The employer has produced his PAN card, salary account and audit account of the firm but that evidence was not accepted in so far as quantum of salary was concerned, by learned Tribunal because the salary was said to be of a period when deceased was alive and paid to the widow but nevertheless learned Tribunal accepted the evidence to the extent that deceased was working as electrician and therefore treated him as a skilled labour and on that basis proceeded to compute his wages at the rate of Rs.135/- per day as per notification issued by the Government in the year 2011. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that it is an excessive because the minimum wage in the year 2007 when the accident took place, was far less than Rs.135/- per day and additionally factor of higher multiplier, which should have been 17 but the learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 18, which led to substantially increase in amount of compensation. 8. 8. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010, decided on 23.04.2012, has deviated from the earlier view observing that it cannot be accepted that in the case of self-employed person or a person who is employed on fixed salary without provision of annual increment and his wage/salary remains the same throughout his life and further held that, even in the case of death of such people, benefit of future prospects should be granted because they are worst affected by rise in the cost of living. In Para 14 of the judgment in Santosh Devi, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/ emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 9. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 9. No doubt, in Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court for persons of age group 25-30, provided multiplier of 17, but considering that adoption of multiplier of 18 has marginally enhanced the compensation and also the fact that interference on that factor alone may not be appropriate. This would also apply to the wages of Rs.135/- per day accepted by the Tribunal because if at the time when he was alive, the wages that would be Rs.100 then also in course of time, this would have been substantially increased. As of now the notified wages of skilled labour is Rs.210/-. Therefore, taking monthly income of Rs.3510/- cannot be held to be so excessive so as to justify interference by this court. 10. Coming now to argument of contributory negligence, I find that enough evidence was not led by the appellant insurance company. It only wants this court to believe that since the deceased was trying to pass an iron divider, it should be deduced from fact that he himself was negligent in crossing the road and not taking sufficient care while doing so. The evidence of AW-3 Krishna Kumar Yadav, constable posted at the site of accident, is to the contrary and, therefore, while on one hand there is evidence proving the case of claimant. I find that there is sufficiency of evidence but the appellant would like this court to believe that the accident must have been all probably taken place because of negligence of the deceased. In the case of direct evidence possibly such an inference cannot be drawn. 11. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 12. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.