JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 16.9.2009, on account of death of Gurdarshan Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 15.3.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was working as a Turner in Ordinance Cable Factory, Industrial Area, Chandigarh as a permanent employee and had been drawing a salary of Rs.18,042/- per month. But the learned Tribunal did not consider his future income. He further contends that there being five dependents, the dependency of 3/4th should have been taken as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has stated that the learned Tribunal determined a just and adequate compensation. Therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. Admittedly, the deceased had been drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. He was a permanent employee with Ordinance Cable Factory, at Chandigarh. The age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects. In para 11 of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 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. [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. [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 42 years of age at the time of the accident, this Court grants 30% increase of the actual salary towards future prospects. 7. Furthermore, there being five dependents, in view of Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the dependency of 3/4th should have been taken. Ordered accordingly. The multiplier of 11, applied by the learned Tribunal is also incorrect. In view of Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 14 instead of 11 should have been applied because at the time of the accident, the deceased was 42 years of age. Ordered accordingly. 8. The untimely death of Gurdarshan Singh was a great shock to his family. On perusal of the impugned award, it emerges that no amount has been awarded towards conventional heads. Therefore, this Court grants a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads. 9. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.29,68,400/- (18000 (monthly salary) + 5400 (30% increase towards future prospects) x 3/4th (dependency) x 12 x 14 (multiplier) + 20,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e. Rs.15,82,400/-(29,68,400 – 13,86,000 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal), out of which the income tax deduction shall be made at source, shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present appeal, till its realisation. 10. The present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. --------------