JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed by Ram Sanwari W/o- Late Kalika Prasad Tiwari resident of Village Lutphabad, Bachhauli, Police Station Bikapur, District Faizabad against the award dated 22.3.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Faizabad by which learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,56,600/- (two lacs fifty six thousand six hundred only) for the death of Kalika Prasad Tiwari husband of the appellant feeling it to be inadequate compensation. 3. A claim petition was filed by the widow of deceased kapil Prasad Tiwari who was a Bahu-uddeshiya worker in Government department who died due to accident which occurred on 5.10.2000 in front of District Hospital Bikapur by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing no. MP 17 C/0710 which was coming from Faizabad towards Sultanpur. The First Information Report was lodged in Police Station Bikapur as Crime No. 308/2000 under Section 279 I.P.C. The age of the deceased was shown to be fifty years at the time of death and his salary was shown to be Rs. 6000/- (six thousand only). 4. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 filed their written submission and they admitted that Sohan Yadav is registered owner of the vehicle and Adalat Singh is the driver of the vehicle. No accident took place from his vehicle. Adalat Singh was going to Faizabad and on the way police of Kotwali Bikapur stopped his vehicle and told him that an accident has taken place and an enquiry is going on. Next day Adalat Singh was roped in a challan in Case Crime No. 303 of 2000 under Section 279 and 304 I.P.C and the vehicle was seized. The driver of the vehicle had valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with National India Insurance Company Ltd. It was also stressed that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that accident took place by his vehicle then the liability to pay compensation is on Insurance Company. 5. Insurance Company filed their written statement alleging that no such occurrence took place and the vehicle was not insured with them. Vehicle was being driven against the policy of the Insurance, R.C., permit, fitness etc. were not valid and up to date. The income of the deceased has been exaggerated. 5. Insurance Company filed their written statement alleging that no such occurrence took place and the vehicle was not insured with them. Vehicle was being driven against the policy of the Insurance, R.C., permit, fitness etc. were not valid and up to date. The income of the deceased has been exaggerated. Deceased Kapil Prasad Tiwari himself was negligent about his safety and security. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues. 1. Whether on 5.10.2000 at about 1.15 P.M. an accident took place by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing no. MP 17 C/0710 in front of Bikapur Hospital in the persistent of Thana Kotwali, District Faizabad in which Kapil Prasad Tiwari injured and he died due to the injuries? 2. Whether the vehicle bearing No. MP 17 C/710 was not insured at the time of accident? 3. To what compensation if any towards the relief the claimant is entitled and from whom? 6. To prove the claim of Ram Sanwari as P.W. 1 Ram Savanri, P.W. 2 Jagsaran Mishra and P.W.3 Sanjiv Kumar Tiwari as P.W. 3 was examined on behalf of the claimant along with photo-copy of FIR, salary certificate, certified copy of postmortem report, technical report, charge sheet were also filed. Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 did not adduce any oral evidence and notary verified driving licence of driver, certified copy of registration certificate and certified copy of insurance cover note was filed. 7. Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties decided issue no.1 in favour of claimants, issue no.2 against O.P. No.2 and while deciding issue no.3 held that claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,56,600/- (two lacs fifty six thousand six hundred only) as compensation along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment and the responsibility for paying the compensation was held to be of National insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation this F.A.F.O has been filed. No cross objection or counter appeal has been filed from the side of Insurance Company. 8. It was submitted from the side of the appellant that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation this F.A.F.O has been filed. No cross objection or counter appeal has been filed from the side of Insurance Company. 8. It was submitted from the side of the appellant that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 6401/- per month which is evident from the pay slip filed by the claimant and also from the statement of P.W.2 and P.W. 3 who were co-workers along with Kalika Prasad Tiwari. The Tribunal was not justified in discarding their testimony and pay slip and holding the annual income to be Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) per annum. It was submitted that the reason of discarding the pay slip that on ground of deceased father name being not written is of no consequence as two witnesses who were working with deceased in the same department has deposed about the salary of the deceased and since there was no evidence in rebuttal, then the Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects of the deceased which the Tribunal has not done. 9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has argued that the Court was justified in fixing income of deceased Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) per annum and there was no justification of adding future prospects. 10. A perusal of the record reveals that a pay slip of the deceased has been filed by way of paper no. 27 C. in the pay slip it has been mentioned that Kalika Prasad Tiwari the deceased was getting Rs. 6,401/- per month as salary. P.W. 2 Jagsaran Mishra and P.W.3 Sanjiv Kumar Tiwari have also deposed before the Court that the deceased was getting Rs. 6,400/- as salary. Learned Tribunal discarded their statement on the ground that salary certificate was not proved. It has to be noted that no strict rule of evidence is to be followed in the matters of accident claim cases. No evidence in rebuttal was filed from the side of the opposite party and from the cross examination of P.W. 2 Jagsaran Mishra and P.W.3 Sanjiv Kumar Tiwari, it is very clear on the point that they were working with Kalika Prasad Tiwari and Kalika Prasad Tiwari was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 6,400/-. No evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to rebut this. As such learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the salary of the deceased Rs. 6,400/-. No evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to rebut this. As such learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the salary of the deceased Rs. 6,400/- per month being un-rebutted from any evidence. We are of the opinion that the monthly salary of the deceased Rs. 6,400/- ought to have been taken into account while computing the compensation. 11. Considering the monthly income of Rs. 6,400/- the salary comes to be Rs. 76,800 (seventy six thousand eight hundred) per annum. If the conservative view is taken then after deduction of one third for his personal expenses, the total amount of dependency comes to be 51,200/-. 12. In case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298 , it has been held that:- "10. Generally, the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects? In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), this court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can taken note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs. 1,032 per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs. 2,000 as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACT 581 (SC), where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1,543 per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this court assumed that by the time he retired, his earnings would have nearly doubled, say Rs. 3,000. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACT 581 (SC), where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1,543 per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this court assumed that by the time he retired, his earnings would have nearly doubled, say Rs. 3,000. This court took the average of the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period and determined the income as Rs. 2,200 per month. In Arati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), as against the actual salary income of Rs. 42,000 per annum (Rs. 3,500 per month), at the time of the accident, this court assumed the income as Rs. 45,000 per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age. 11. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), this court increased the income by nearly 100 per cent, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the income was increased only by 50 per cent and in Arati Bezbaruah, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the income was increased by a mere 7 per cent. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30 percent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increased, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 13. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 13. The Apex Court has gone further in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others, AIR 2012 SC 2185 . After considering its previous decisions, and the distinction between rich and poor and also between the salaried person/self-employed person on a fixed salary, has laid down the principle that even self-employed persons who are employed on fixed salary without provisions of annual increment etc. also are entitled to get about 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. 14. Considering the above decisions of the apex court we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed mistake in not considering the future prospects of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was of 50 years of age and had he been alive he would have received at least 10 increments in his salary at an enhanced rate. So we are of the opinion that Rs. 60,000/- (sixty thousand) per annum be taken into account for computing the compensation. Since the deceased was a Government employee hence, he was bound to get increment in salary till he retires. Hence, we feel that taking a conservative view, the amount which should be taken into consideration for computing the compensation should be Rs. 60,000/- (sixty thousand) per annum. Using the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the deceased the total amount of compensation comes to be 7,80,000/- (seven lac eighty thousand). Along with that Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate should also be added to the compensation package. Thus the claimant is entitled for Rs. 7,89,500/- (seven lac eighty nine thousand five hundred). The liability to pay this amount is on respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Ltd. In view of this the appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. The First Appeal From Order is allowed. Claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. Thus the claimant is entitled for Rs. 7,89,500/- (seven lac eighty nine thousand five hundred). The liability to pay this amount is on respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Ltd. In view of this the appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. The First Appeal From Order is allowed. Claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,89,500/- (seven lac eighty nine thousand five hundred) from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment along with 8% of interest per annum. 16. The National Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount within a period of two months before the Tribunal concerned failing which claimants will be entitled to receive this amount through the Tribunal. 17. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted from the amount. Rakesh Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar will get Rs. 1,00000/- (one lac) each. The remaining amount along with interest will be given to the widow out of which Rs. 1,00000/- (one lac) will be given to her in cash and the remaining amount will be deposited in monthly income scheme of a Post Office nearest to her residence and she will also entitle to get the monthly interest accordingly. Statutory deposit made in this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal, if not already remitted, as early as possible.