JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. The appellants set the law in motion presenting a Memo. of Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, Agartala, West Tripura, in case No. TS (MAC) 678 of 2005. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the appellants and learned C.G.C., Mr. A. Nandi for the respondents. BRIEF FACT: 2. Suranjan Gupta, aged 51 years, an Inspector of Police, attached with Traffic Wing of the Police Department of the Government of Tripura, while on duty on 01.12.2005, riding a motor bike, at about 11.15 am, passing through the Airport Road, near North Gate of Palace Compound, was knocked down by a speeding Army vehicle No. TO-4C-072398K (Truck) and he received fatal injury and when shifted to hospital was declared dead. The appellants being the wife, son and mother of the deceased presented a petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of Traffic Inspector, Suranjan Gupta and an amount of Rs. 31,17,320/- was claimed as compensation in all. 3. The respondents contested the suit denying allegation of rash and negligent driving of the army vehicle and further stated that the accident occurred for the rash and negligent riding of the motor bike by the deceased. 4. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 13,39,356/-. 5. The appellants having been dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, determined by the Tribunal, filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation did not take into consideration the loss of future earnings of the deceased, and therefore, the assessment made by the Tribunal was not correct and they are entitled to get further compensation on that ground. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman submits that the deceased Suranjan Gupta while working as a Traffic Inspector met the accident and died on the spot at the age of 51. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the salary income of the deceased as per his pay slip, but did not consider that the pay of the deceased would increase during rest seven years of service due to increment and pay revision, etc. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the salary income of the deceased as per his pay slip, but did not consider that the pay of the deceased would increase during rest seven years of service due to increment and pay revision, etc. and considering those aspects the Tribunal would add some percentage of amount and calculate it towards compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Nandi submits that the Tribunal assessed the compensation taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 3104 and since the deceased was more than 50 years at the time of death, there was no question at all to have any addition to the income for future prospect. 8. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence on record i.e. the pay certificate of the deceased (Exbt. 7), which shows that the total pay of the deceased was Rs. 15,230/- and taking into consideration that amount, as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), assessed the compensation to which the appellants have no grievance. Their only grievance is that the future prospect has not been taken into consideration. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospect in view of the rule of thumb prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and referring to paragraph 11 of the judgment, learned counsel submits that there may be a departure from the rule of thumb if an exceptional case involving special consideration is made out. Paragraph 11 of the judgment, in Sarla Verma (supra) runs as follows: "11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% 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. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% 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 in the taxable range, the words, actual salary' should be read as, actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize 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." 9. Referring to the above observation of the Apex Court learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri. K.R. Madhusudhan and Ors. v. The Administrative Officer and Anr., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 , and in that reported case the Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 held thus: "8. In the Sarla Verma (supra) judgment the Court has held that there should be no addition to income for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. The learned Bench called it a rule of thumb and it was developed so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcomes of litigation. However, the Bench held that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 9. We are of the opinion that the rule of thumb evolved in Sarla Verma (supra) is to be applied to those cases where there was no concrete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects. Obviously, the said rule was based on assumption and to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the same. 10. Obviously, the said rule was based on assumption and to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the same. 10. The present case stands on different factual basis where there is clear and incontrovertible evidence on record that the deceased was entitled and in fact bound to get a raise in income in the future, a fact which was corroborated by evidence on record. Thus, we are of the view that the present case comes within the exceptional circumstances' and not within the purview of the rule of thumb laid down by Sarla Verma (supra) judgment. Hence, even though the deceased was above 50 years of age, he shall be entitled to increase in income due to future prospects." In the said reported case, taking into consideration the evidence on record the Apex Court allowed addition to the income due to future prospect. But unfortunately, in the case at hand, I find no iota of definite evidence regarding the future increment and or revision of pay of the deceased during his rest tenure of service. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman submits that the deceased had another seven years of service and had he not died due to the accident he would get yearly increment and apart from promotional avenues he would have benefited by pay revision, etc. He further submits that in the absence of any definite evidence the Tribunal could make some guess work and some hypothetical consideration and would at least award 30% addition to the income while assessing compensation. He has referred the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 wherein the Apex Court has held-"Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis" and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." No doubt, in every such case of compensation some sorts of guess work and some sorts of hypothetical consideration take place. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered." No doubt, in every such case of compensation some sorts of guess work and some sorts of hypothetical consideration take place. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , the Apex Court held thus: "In the very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." For having a guess work or for hypothetical consideration some evidence is required on the basis of which such guess work by the Tribunal or the Court can be made. In the case in hand, there is no evidence at all as to what was the yearly increment of the deceased at the time of his death and whether there was at all any yearly increment payable to the deceased or that the increment was sealed. There is also no evidence at all that the deceased was in the promotional zone or that there was any possibility of having any increase of monthly pay during the rest tenure of service because of pay revision or review, etc. Under such circumstances, while there is no evidence at all, the ratio of the case of K.R. Madhusudhan (supra) cannot be applied. The submission made by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman cannot be considered for the lack of evidence on record. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment. Appeal dismissed