JUDGMENT 1. - Appalled by the part of the impugned award dated 13.11.2010 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 84 of 2007, the appellants/claimants have laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). The affections of the appellants as emerging out of memo of appeal are confined to the findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi on issue No. 2. 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellants/ claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act of 1988, inter alia, on the ground that on the fateful day of 13.4.2007 at about 12.30 P.M., when deceased was travelling in his Car Bearing No. RJ-24-CA- 491 from Abu Road to Ajmer on National Highway No. 14, his vehicle collided with Truck No. RJ-19-G-4077 at Ajmer Road just 2 kms. after Bar. As per the version of the appellants, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trick by its driver, first respondent Nandu Ram. The impact of the truck was so grave that the car was dragged for almost 100 meters along with the truck. As per the claim petition, due to the said accident, deceased Govind Ram suffered serious injuries and he has succumbed to the injuries. Besides deceased, Jeewan Lal and Rajesh Kumar Garg also suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. The appellants/claimants while mentioning the age of the deceased as 35 years, highlighted the facts about his occupation by narrating that his monthly income was Rs. 30,000/- and due to his untimely death, the bereaved family has suffered an irreparable loss. The appellants/claimants quantified the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,85,000/- under different heads. 3. The claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants was contested by the respondents, but no formal return to the claim petition was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The third respondent-insurer filed the reply to the claim petition and admitted the factum of insurance of the offending vehicle with the Company. The rest of the contents of the claim petition were denied by the Insurance Company for want of knowledge. 1 and 2. The third respondent-insurer filed the reply to the claim petition and admitted the factum of insurance of the offending vehicle with the Company. The rest of the contents of the claim petition were denied by the Insurance Company for want of knowledge. While adverting to the fact regarding rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, the insurer has refuted the allegation that truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, first respondent. According to the version of the insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident was directly attributable to the deceased himself. Besides that the insurer has also made certain other formal objections in the pleadings. 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings formulated for issues for determination. 5. With a view to substantiate the claim on behalf of the appellants- claimants, five witnesses namely AW-1 Divya Lalwani, AW-2 Mahesh Garg, AW-3 Mukesh Kumar Patel and AW-4-Seema Garg and AW-5 Deepmala @ Rinku were examined. All these witnesses in their deposition authenticated the claim of the appellants. Apart from the oral evidence, the appellants-claimants also produced documentary evidence for proving their claims. 6. To counter, the oral evidence of the appellants on behalf of the respondents, the truck driver Nandu Ram appeared in the witness box as NAW-1. After conclusion of the evidence of the rival parties, the learned Tribunal heard the final arguments and adjudicated the claim by allowing part of the claim petition, awarding compensation for a sum of Rs. 13,28,000/- only under different heads. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the impugned award as well as the materials on record. 8. Assailing the part of the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sandeep Shah and Mr. Sabir Kahn have contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the learned Tribunal has failed to consider many aspects while quantifying the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically questioned the yardsticks and parameters applied by the learned Tribunal while determining the amount of compensation in Paras 15 to 17 of the impugned award. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, as per Income Tax Return (Ex.14) of the deceased Govind Ram his annual income was Rs. 1,29,000/- only for the year 2005-2006 and in the preceding year, it was shown as Rs. 1,02,350/- only. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, as per Income Tax Return (Ex.14) of the deceased Govind Ram his annual income was Rs. 1,29,000/- only for the year 2005-2006 and in the preceding year, it was shown as Rs. 1,02,350/- only. Considering the age of the deceased in the category of 40-45 years, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 and quantified the loss of income to the tune of Rs. 19,50,000/- only. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal has lost sight of a very important aspect regarding future prospectus of the income of the deceased and that being so, no compensation was awarded under the head future prospectus of income. 9. The submission of the learned counsels for the appellants in sum and substance is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not allowing compensation for future prospectus of income of the deceased and as such the impugned award merits modification. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has also questioned the impugned award on the anvil of the fact. that the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted ⅓rd of the income of the deceased towards his own expenses. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that keeping in view the number of the dependents of the deceased, only ¼th of the annual income of the deceased was worth deduction against personal expenses. Buttressing both these arguments with full emphasis at his command, the learned counsel for the appellants have placed heavy reliance on authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have invited my attention towards Paras 20 to 24 and Paras 25 to 32 of the judgment referred supra. Placing heavy reliance on the judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra), learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and no commensurating with the loss suffered by bereaved family and, therefore, amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bohra for the second respondent and Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the Insurance Company have submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly quantified the compensation and no interference with the impugned award vis-a-vis quantum of compensation is warranted. 13. Mr. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bohra for the second respondent and Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the Insurance Company have submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly quantified the compensation and no interference with the impugned award vis-a-vis quantum of compensation is warranted. 13. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the insurance Company has strenuously urged that although due to the accident, the bereaved family has suffered a loss, but the provisions of the Act of 1988 cannot be benevolently construed so as to turn a calamity into a windfall. The sum and substance of the submission of Mr. johari is that on evaluation of the evidence and other materials on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15 and as such has quantified adequate compensation. While adverting to the claim of the appellants for income from future prospectus, learned counsel Mr. Johari has contended that in the instant case, there is no plausible reason for allowing compensation under the head of income from future prospectus. As regards deduction to the extent of ⅓rd of the income of the deceased, Mr. johari has stoutly defended the impugned award. 14. For appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants for loss of income from future prospectus, Para 24 of the judgment of Sarla Verma's case (supra) is very much relevant as it is throwing light on the issue. Para 24 reads as under: 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. (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. 15. The second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants hovers around that deduction of income of the deceased for his personal expenses. In this behalf, Para 30 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra) deserves special emphasis. Para 30 of the judgment is quoted infra. "Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units 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 (¼th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (⅕th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 16. Applying the ratio decidendi of Sarla Verma's case (supra) in the light of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I also feel persuaded that the learned Tribunal has completely lost sight of both these vital issues as there is no whisper about these aspects in the impugned award. Although the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased Govind Ram as 40 years and 9 months, it has not made any endeavour to allow the bereaved family compensation under the head of income from future prospects. 17. Although the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased Govind Ram as 40 years and 9 months, it has not made any endeavour to allow the bereaved family compensation under the head of income from future prospects. 17. In the given circumstances, keeping in view the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect and awarded compensation under this head. By not allowing compensation under this head, the learned Tribunal has, therefore, seriously erred in assessing the amount of compensation, which requires interference by this Court. 18. Switching on to the second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants about ⅓rd deduction from the income of the deceased for his personal expenses, in my humble opinion, the parameters laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) clearly clinches the issue in favour of the appellants and the deduction is excessive. In my considered opinion, actual dependents on the deceased are four in number and assuming it that they are six in number, as per verdict in Sarla Verma's case, the learned Tribunal should have deducted ¼th of the income of the deceased against personal expenses. Therefore, under this head also, the appellants have been able to persuade me to enhance the amount of compensation. This being the fact situation, emerging out from the case in hand, the appeal of the appellants deserves acceptance. 19. Upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appellants is allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants is enhanced by recalculating the income of the deceased after ¼th deduction for personal expenses and accordingly the appellants are entitled for compensation under this head by applying multiplier of 15 comes to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- x 15 = Rs. 19,50,000/- After deducting ¼, which comes to Rs. 4,87,500/-. The amount of compensation is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 14,62,500/- only. 20. Applying the parameters set out in Sarla Verma's case, the appellants- claimants are also entitled for additional amount of compensation under the head income from future prospectus C' 30 % of the actual income, which comes to Rs. 39,000/- and after applying multiplier of 15 and deducting ¼th amount, the total sum is quantified to Rs. 4,38,750/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 14,62,500/- + Rs. 4,38,750 = Rs. 19,01,250. 39,000/- and after applying multiplier of 15 and deducting ¼th amount, the total sum is quantified to Rs. 4,38,750/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 14,62,500/- + Rs. 4,38,750 = Rs. 19,01,250. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 28,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses which is to be added in compensation without any demur. Accordingly, the total sum of compensation is re-assessed and quantified for a sum of Rs. 19,01,250/- + Rs. 28,000/- = 19,29,250/- only and the appellants are declared entitled for the same. 21. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants as calculated supra within a period of two months from today. If the enhanced amount is not paid within two months, then the appellants shall be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount @ 7% per annum. The costs are made easy.Appeal Allowed. *******