JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') vide its judgment and award dated 11th May, 2002 in MACT Case No. 891/1998 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,45,400/- to the claimant appellants as compensation for the accidental death of Bheem Singh who was working as Store Keeper in the Railways. Being dissatisfied with the award amount, the claimant appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the award amount. 3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 10-9-1998 when Bheem Singh (since deceased), Depot Store Keeper, was coming on cycle from the office of the Dy. Chief Engineer, Dumper No. RRZ 8636 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner struck Bheem Singh from behind as a result of which, Bheem Singh died. The claimant appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal mentioning therein that at the time of the accident the age of the deceased was 34 years and he was drawing gross salary of Rs. 9097/- per 2013 AAC/193 XI month and would have received future increments also. Thus, the claimant appellants claimed total amount Rs. 34,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied the fact of the accident. He further pleaded that although he passed from that way but no accident took place from his vehicle and he has been falsely involved in the accident. 5. Respondent No.2, the registered owner of the offending vehicle has admitted the fact of accident but pleaded that the deceased Bheem Singh himself was responsible for the accident. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following four issues were framed(Vernacular matter omitted.-Ed.) 7. Both the parties produced documentary evidence and the Tribunal after recording oral evidence of the parties and further consideration thereof, decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimant appellants and while deciding Issue Nos. 3 and 4 partly in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 31st October, 2000 awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,19,000/- as compensation to the claimant appellants. 8. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimant appellants and while deciding Issue Nos. 3 and 4 partly in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 31st October, 2000 awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,19,000/- as compensation to the claimant appellants. 8. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and award the claimant appellants filed SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 127/2001 for enhancement of the award amount. Along with the appeal, the claimant appellants also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for taking on record the salary certificate as additional evidence. The respondents have also filed SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 402/ 2001. This Court vide its judgment dated 21st May, 2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal filed by the claimant appellants was allowed by this Court and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for afresh decision after taking on record the salary certificate filed by the claimant appellants in the appeal and recording evidence in relation to the salary certificate dated 30th June, 2000. 9. Submission of counsel for the claimant appellants is that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was determined as 34 years still the multiplier of 13 has been applied whereas as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, ( (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (paragraph No. 42) multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Counsel further submits-that although after remand of the case by this Court, the monthly income of the deceased has rightly been determined as Rs. 8,900/- but the deduction of ⅓rd for personal and living expenses has wrongly been made even after holding that out of the seven claimants, two are not the legal representatives and cannot be the `claimants' therefore, on the basis of the five legal representatives unit base deduction as per the Sarla Verma's Case : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) (paragraph No.30), 1ath deduction for personal and living expenses will be applicable. Counsel also submits that the actual monthly salary determined by the Tribunal is Rs. 8900/- and after deducting 1/4th of the same, the same would be Rs. 6675/- per month. Counsel also submits that the actual monthly salary determined by the Tribunal is Rs. 8900/- and after deducting 1/4th of the same, the same would be Rs. 6675/- per month. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 34 years and he was in permanent employment of the Railways, therefore, future prospectus are required to be determined @ 50% of the actual salary as per paragraph No.24 of Sarla Verma's case, ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) which has been affirmed in Reshma Kumari's case (supra) by the Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court. The last submission of the counsel for the claimant appellants is that the Tribunal has not properly considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper and the same is required to be enhanced. 10. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased and has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 and ⅓ deduction from the monthly income of the deceased for his personal expenses. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is just and proper. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma, ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra). (1) Regarding deduction for personal and living expenses. "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (⅓rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one fifth (⅕th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six." (2) Regarding future prospects : "24. 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 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. 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 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." (3) Regarding applicability of multipliers "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 12. I have gone through the record of the Misc. Appeal and further considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 13. As per the Tribunal the age and monthly income of the deceased has been determined (a) 34 years and (b) Rs. 8,900/- respectively. 14. I have gone through the record of the Misc. Appeal and further considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 13. As per the Tribunal the age and monthly income of the deceased has been determined (a) 34 years and (b) Rs. 8,900/- respectively. 14. On consideration of the same I am of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal is required to be modified and the award is required to be enhanced as per the aforesaid paragraphs of Sarla Verma's case ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) on the issues of (i) Addition of 50% of the actual salary of the deceased for future prospects; (ii) 1/4th deduction for personal expenses; and (iii) applying the multiplier of 16 at the age of 34 years, the final calculation of the same is as follows : (i) Addition of 50% of the actual salary of the deceased to the actual salary of deceased for future prospects ( F30171ML 8900/- Rs. 4450/- F30171ML 13350/-). (ii) Deduction of "⅓rd" from the monthly income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses is modified to "1/4th" and after addition of 50% for future aspects as calculated in aforesaid head of future prospects, the monthly income (salary) of the deceased is calculated as Rs. 10,013/- (actual monthly salary Rs. 8900 + addition of 50% i.e. Rs. 4450 - 1/4th deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs. 3337 ( Rs. 13350-3337= Rs. 10,013). (iii) Instead of multiplier of 13' multiplier of "16" is to be applied and thus, the loss of income would be Rs. 19,22,496/- ( Rs. 10,013 x 12 x 16 19,22,496/-); In view of the above, the total amount of award would be as under (1) Total loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs. 9,20,400/- to Rs. 19,22,496/- (2) Loss of Consortium already granted by the Tribunal Rs. 10,000/- (3) Loss of love & affection to the three sons, already granted by the Tribunal Rs. 15,000/- Total Amount Rs. 19,47,496/- 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,47,496/-. The claimant appellants are entitled to recover the enhanced amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in the month of November, 1998.Appeal partly allowed. *******