JUDGMENT 1. - Both the misc. appeals arise out of common judgment award, hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Both the misc. appeals have been filed against the judgment/award dated 18-9-2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short `the tribunal') in claim case No. 301/2008. 3. Detailed facts have already been mentioned by the tribunal in its judgment/award, hence, I am not repeating the same except where-ever the necessity arises. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-5- 2007 Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Advocate) along with his friends was coming from Divrala Ajitgarh towards Jaipur by Car No. RJ-14-8C-6821 after attending a marriage. This car was owned by Sanjay Pareek, who was a friend of Rajendra Kumar Sharma. This car was being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver. Ahead the car a jeep bearing No. RI-14-7C-1886 was going on, which was also being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Suddenly the jeep driver took his jeep in a side, as a result of which the car coming behind the jeep hit with the jeep and on account of its excessive speed, the driver of the car could not control the car and hit with a tractor going ahead the car. Due to this accident Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Advocate) and other persons sustained injuries and during the course of treatment, Rajendra Kumar succumbed to injuries in SMS Hospital on 14-5-2007. 5. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Police after investigation submitted charge- sheet against Sawan Kumar under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, IPC. Thereafter, successors of the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. The issues were framed. Evidence was submitted by both the parties. Thereafter, the tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. The insurance company being aggrieved with the excessive amount and the claimants being aggrieved with the lesser amount of compensation, have preferred two different misc. appeals before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record in right perspective. appeals before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record in right perspective. The tribunal framed five issues but same have been decided by the tribunal without due appreciating the evidence adduced by the insurance company. The impugned award dated 18-9-2009 is legally not sustainable in eye of law. He further submits that from the evidence it is clear that the accident had taken place on 4-5-2007 and the FIR (Ex.3) was lodged on 5-5-2007 i.e. after a delay of about 18 hours by the brother of the deceased Shri Rakesh Sharma. No satis- factory explanation has been given by the complainant regarding lodging of the FIR after such a great delay. The tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the jeep solely responsible for the accident specially when the claimants themselves came up with a case that the driver of the car was rash and negligent in driving the car. According to him it was at the most a case of contributory negligence as alternative pleaded by the Insurance Company in its reply. The tribunal has further not appreciated the fact that apart from the collusion of the car and jeep, the car further had gone and hit the tractor which had fled away from the side and thus, the tractor was also responsible for the accident and therefore, in such a situation where three vehicles were involved, at the most liability of the appellant insurance company was about 33%. While passing the impugned award, the tribunal has not considered the Rojnamcha. He submits that no accident took place with the jeep on that date. The compensation awarded to the claimants by the tribunal is also on the very higher side. Thus, the impugned award passed by the tribunal be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimants submits deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma was registered as an Advocate in Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the year 1996. In the year 1996 he started his practice as an Advocate in Rajasthan High Court. Jaipur, Sub-ordinate Courts including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and he was a shining Advocate. On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimants submits deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma was registered as an Advocate in Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the year 1996. In the year 1996 he started his practice as an Advocate in Rajasthan High Court. Jaipur, Sub-ordinate Courts including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and he was a shining Advocate. The income of the deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma has not been assessed in the light of the Judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2008-09 (Supp.) RAR 1 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 3104 , as also in the light of judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2012 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 667 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 . 8. He submits that the complainant has given satisfactory explanation regarding lodging of the FIR after a delay of 18 hours because after the alleged accident has taken place, he remained busy in the hospital for the treatment of Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Advocate). At the time of alleged accident the deceased used to earn Rs. 1,22,777/- per annum and also in assessing his contribution towards the family only as Rs. 84,853/- per annum. It was proved by unrebutted evidence that deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma started working as Associate Advocate of Shri Pankaj Ghiya, Advocate. He was also engaged in his own private practice. In all he used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was an income tax payee and as per the income tax returns of last three years, his income was progressive. In future his profession as well as his income would have risen much higher. He used to contribute a large part of his income towards the family members i.e. the claimants. Because of his untimely death the claimants have not only been deprived of his love and affection and care but also from his economic and future economic contribution. A very low multiplier of 16 only have been applied in this case. According to him, looking to the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, a much higher multiplier ought to have been applied in this case for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. A very low multiplier of 16 only have been applied in this case. According to him, looking to the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, a much higher multiplier ought to have been applied in this case for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. According to him, the tribunal has further erred in awarding interest on the compensation amount only @ 6% per annum, though as per the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court it should have been 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. According to him Rs. 97,25,000/- be awarded as a compensation to the claimants. 9. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of Sm. Rekha Sharma (AW1) which is quoted in issue No. 4 of the impugned judgment/award, relevant part of which is reproduced as under : ^^bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZx.k dk gSA izkFkhZx.k us lk{; esa xokg ,0MCY;w0 1 js[kk 'kekZ dks izLrqr fd;k gS ftlus dgk gS fd nq?kZVuk esa mlds ifr dh e`R;q gqbZ gS mlds ifr is'kk ls odhy FksA os 37 o"kZ dh vk;q ds Fks tks jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa esa vf/koDrk ds :i esa iSjoh djrs Fks vkSj izfrekg 15]000@& :i;s vk; vftZr djrs FksA os cgqr esgurh o yXu'khy Fks Hkfo"; esa vkSj Hkh vk; c<+rh os vk;djnkrk Fks vkSj iadt ?kh;k ds lkFk Hkh crkSj lgk;d vf/koDrk dk;Z djrs FksA ifr dh vk; ij og Lo;a vkSj mldh iq=h rFkk lkl o llqj lHkh vkfJr Fks vc mudh e`R;q ls vk; dk dksbZ L=ksr ugha jgk gS mudk bZykt fnukad 04-05-2007 ls 14-05-2007 rd pyk ftlesa pkj yk[k :i;s [kpkZ gks x;kA 10. In support of his case he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2008- 09 (Suppl.) Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant, which is reproduced as under : "10. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631 this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the Court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs. 1032/- per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs. 2000/- as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1691 was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 (3) SCC 179 : AIR 1996 SC 1274 , where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Rs. 3000/-. This Court took the average of actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs. 2200/- per month. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Gelogical Survey of India, 2003 (3) SCC 148 : AIR 2003 SC 1817 , as against the actual salary income of Rs. 42,000/- per annum, ( Rs. 3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this Court as- sumed the income as Rs. 45,000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age." 11. 42,000/- per annum, ( Rs. 3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this Court as- sumed the income as Rs. 45,000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age." 11. He has also drawn attention of the Court upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2012 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 667 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 . Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment is much relevant, which are reproduced as under : "13. In Sarla Verma's case ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra), another two Judge Bench considered various factors relevant for determining the compensation payable in cases involving motor accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., 1951 AC 601 , Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 and made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of award of compensation by laying down straightjacket formula under different headings, some of which are enumerated below: "(i) Addition to income for future prospects 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 75%. In view of the impondereables 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. 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 (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. (ii) Deduction for personal and living expenses 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 (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one fifth (⅕th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. (iii) Selection of multiplier We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susmma 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- 40 years, M-14 fo 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. 14. 14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/in- come of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. There- fore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their facilities. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been re- vised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a coresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be usefull to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self- employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent. increase in his total in- come over a period of time and if he /she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, gone through the judgments as cited above and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 13. It is an admitted fact that deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Advocate) died in a road accident which occured on 4-5-2007. The explanation given by the brother of the deceased with regard to lodging of FIR after 18 hours is much satisfactory. 14. From the bare perusal of the impugned judgment /award it is clear that the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has failed to consider the statement of AW 1 Sint. Rekha Sharma. She in her statement has stated that at the time of alleged accident her husband used to earn Rs. 1,22,777/- per annum and also in assessing his contribution towards the family only as Rs. 84,853/- per annum. Deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma started practising as an Associate counsel of Shri Pankaj Ghiya, Senior Advocate, who is said to be practicing in Tax matters. He was also engaged in his own private practice. In all the used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- per month. 84,853/- per annum. Deceased Rajendra Kumar Sharma started practising as an Associate counsel of Shri Pankaj Ghiya, Senior Advocate, who is said to be practicing in Tax matters. He was also engaged in his own private practice. In all the used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was an income tax payee and as per the the income tax returns of last three years, his income was progressive. In future his profession as well as his income would have risen much higher. He used to contribute a large part of his income towards the family members i.e. the claimants. Because of his untimely death the wife of the deceased along with other dependents have not only been deprived of his love and affection and care but also from his economic and future economic contribution. Thus, looking to the evidence of AW 1 Rekha Sharma and the judgments cited above, in my considered view minimum Rs. 3 lacs needs to be enhanced relating to issue No.4 (quoted above) as compensation in addition to the awarded amount. 15. In the result, the misc. appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the misc. appeal filed by the claimants appellants is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 18-9-2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur city, Jaipur & Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. 301/2008 is modified. Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three lacs only) is enhanced as a compensation in addition to the awarded amount. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount before the tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment. Immediately after deposition of the aforesaid enhanced amount by the insurance company, the tribunal shall immediately disburse the same to the claimants. Rest of the terms and conditions under the award shall remain as it is. 16. In view of the judgment, passed in the main appeal, the misc. appeal also stands disposed of.Order Accordingly. *******