JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.49/2012, vide which, the compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- was awarded and the appellant-company was held liable for the same. 2. While praying for setting aside the order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the claimants themselves, the bus was in stationary condition and the deceased climbed over the bus for putting down the goods lying on the roof top of the bus. During this process, he came into contact with electric line and succumbed to the injuries. The admitted facts which have come on record clearly establish the negligence of the deceased himself. It is further contended that the deceased could avoid the accident by keeping himself away from the electric wire if the electric wire was not at sufficient height from the roof top of the bus, he could have asked the bus driver to park the bus at some other -place so that the goods lying on the roof top of the bus could be safely put down. The deceased failed to take due care and caution and came in contact with the electric line which resulted into such accident. These circumstances nowhere establish the negligence of the bus driver and on the contrary the circumstances clearly indicate the negligence of the deceased himself. Therefore it was argued that the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation under Section 166 of the Act for the negligence of the deceased himself. 3. Secondly, the multiplier of 13 should have been adopted instead of 17 by taking into account the average age of the parents instead of the deceased himself. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, reported in MACD 2010 (SC) 266. 4. Heard. 5. The argument that the deceased himself was negligent cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The deceased while removing his luggage from the roof top of the bus, came in contact with live wires. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to park the bus at a safe place. 4. Heard. 5. The argument that the deceased himself was negligent cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The deceased while removing his luggage from the roof top of the bus, came in contact with live wires. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to park the bus at a safe place. Admittedly, the driver parked the bus at a place where the live wires were passing. The bus charges fare from its passengers. Thus, it is the duty of the person incharge of the bus to make arrangement for placing and removing the luggage from its roof top. Thus, the negligence, if at all, is of the bus driver who parked the bus at an unsafe place and also of those who are incharge of the bus for not making arrangement for placing and removing the luggage from the roof top. 6. The second argument that multiplier of 13 should have been applied instead of 17, has merit keeping in mind the age of the parents as the deceased was unmarried and in view of the settled proposition of law in the judgment of Santosh Devi (Supra). However, even if, the second argument is accepted and multiplier of 13 is applied, there may not be any difference in the total amount of compensation awarded in view of the fact that the Tribunal while holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month, did not take into consideration future increase in the income. Moreover, deduction has been made at the rate of ⅓ instead of 50%. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2012 AIOL 180 was pleased to hold that a person who is self-employed or engaged in fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income which he would have earned in future. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under:- "14. Para 14 of the said judgment reads 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 his rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive 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 Government 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% 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." 8. It is evident from the perusal of the above that while calculating the amount of compensation on the basis of the income, 30% increase in the total income over a period of time should have been applied. In case the said 30% had been granted, the claimant would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,46,000/-i.e. (5000-2500 as = spent on himself by adding 30% it amounts to Rs. 3500/- x 12 = Rs. 42,000/- multiplied by 13 comes to Rs. 5,46,000/-), whereas, the claimant has been granted Rs. 5,10,000/-. However, no counter appeal has been filed. As such, in the interest of justice, taking into account judicial note of this fact, the Court does not deem it proper to reduce the compensation. Thus, even if, the multiplier of 13 was applied instead of 17, the petitioner would have been entitled to more compensation than awarded, in case the 30% increase in the income had been granted or even if deduction was made at the rate of ⅓ instead of 50%. 9. No other ground was raised. 10. The appeal is dismissed. The stay application No. 9549/2012 also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******