JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants feeling aggrieved by the award dated 17.12.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur, whereby, a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- was awarded as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 18.09.1991 till realisation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are legal representatives of Shri Madan Lal, who was Conductor of Bus No.RRB 3671, which was driven by respondent No.1 Balveer Singh, while going from Jaipur to Jodhpur on 14.07.1991 at about 3:30 A.M., the bus collided with a standard truck and Madan Lal, who was conductor in the bus died in the accident as the bus turned turtle after the accident. 3. The appellants-claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,97,600/-. It was claimed in the claim petition that deceased Madan Lal was aged 42 years and was earning Rs. 1100/- per month and, therefore, future loss of income was calculated at Rs. 2,37,600/-. Further sum under loss of consortium, loss of love & affection and funeral expenses was claimed at Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. 4. The claim was contested by non-claimant No.2 - Owner and non-claimant No.3 - Insurance Company. The claimants examined seven witnesses in support of their claim and no evidence was produced by the non-claimants. 5. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased Madan Lal was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1200/- and after deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 15 calculated the future loss of income at Rs. 1,44,000/-. It further awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love & affection and, as such, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,64,000/- 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. 7. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that though the monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 1200/- and application of multiplier of 15 is in tune with the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deduction of amount towards personal expenses is on the higher side specially keeping in view that one of the child is deaf and dumb. 1200/- and application of multiplier of 15 is in tune with the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deduction of amount towards personal expenses is on the higher side specially keeping in view that one of the child is deaf and dumb. It was further contended that the learned tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. Ultimately, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and just compensation be awarded in favour of the appellants. 8. The counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company opposed the enhancement claimed by the appellants and submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that merely because one of the child was deaf and dumb is of no consequence so far as deduction on account of personal expense is concerned. On the issue of future prospects, it was submitted that no such claim was made in the claim petition and, as such, the appellants are not entitled for the same. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 10. So far as the issue relating to deduction on account of personal expenses @ ⅓rd of the income of deceased Madan Lal is concerned, in view of the fact that four persons i.e. wife and three children were dependent on the deceased and in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported at (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should have been taken at, which would result in the monthly contribution of the4 deceased at Rs. 900/- instead of Rs. 800/- taken by the tribunal and would, therefore, lead to increase of compensation by Rs. 18,000/- on that count and the loss of future income in the case would come to Rs. 1,62,000/- instead of Rs. 1,44,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.11-12. So far as the grant of compensation on account of future prospects is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) clearly held as under:- "34. 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 the 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 the 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 calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary or (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefore should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 13. In view thereof, the claimants are entitled to a further amount of 30% of the amount awarded for loss of future income under the category of future prospects, which would result in an5 increase of Rs. 48,600/- (30% of Rs. 1,62,000/-).14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding failure of the appellants in claiming the amount under the head of future prospects in the claim petition is concerned, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, reported at 1994 (2) SCC 176 , and Sarla Verma's case (supra) addition to income for future prospects is an established rule and, denial thereof, is only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances and, as such, the said argument cannot be sustained.15. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur in M.A.C.T. Case No.268/1995 is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,30,600/- instead of Rs. 1,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants would further be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount i.e. on Rs. 66,600/- from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 18.09.1991. The respondents to make compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before them. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******