JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The appellant i.e. Insurance Company has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned Award dated 25.2.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide which the claim petition of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, was allowed and the appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the learned Tribunal, while determining the compensation, has committed error in not making any deduction towards personal expenses. The deceased, who was 21 years, was bachelor. The multiplier of 11 applied by the learned Tribunal is also on the higher side. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. claimants has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the increase of 50% of the actual salary should have been made towards future income as the age of the deceased was permanent employee. He was 21 years of age at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.5000/- is also on the lower side. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The age of the deceased i.e. 21 years is not disputed. The deceased was a permanent employee with the Union of India. He had been drawing a salary of Rs.11704/- per month as per Ex.P60. In para 11 of the judgment delivered in Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “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 selfemployed 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.” 6. Accordingly, in the present case, the deceased being 21 years of age at the time of accident, and being a Permanent employee is entitled to 50% increase of the actual salary towards future prospects. 7. The learned Tribunal did not make any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, in view of Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the deceased being a bachelor, 50% deduction ought to have been made. Ordered accordingly. 8. The multiplier of 11 applied by the learned Tribunal is as per Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), keeping in view the age of the parents, which falls in the age group of 50-55 years. 9. The untimely death of Rajbir Verma was a great shock to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.5000/- being on the lower side, is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- ( in all). 10. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,45,696/- (11704 (monthly income) + 5852 (50% increased future income) x 1/2 (dependency) x 12 - 3000 (tax deduction) x 11 (multiplier) + 20,000 ( conventional heads). The excessive amount i.e. Rs.8,42,120/- (19,87,816 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal) – 11,45,696 (total compensation) shall be recovered from the appellants. 11. 10. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,45,696/- (11704 (monthly income) + 5852 (50% increased future income) x 1/2 (dependency) x 12 - 3000 (tax deduction) x 11 (multiplier) + 20,000 ( conventional heads). The excessive amount i.e. Rs.8,42,120/- (19,87,816 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal) – 11,45,696 (total compensation) shall be recovered from the appellants. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. --------------