JUDGMENT Mr. A.K. Sikri, C.J.: - One person named Ajmer met with an accident on 21.11.2007, which proved fatal resulting into his death. The appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of Ajmer, filed application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) seeking compensation from the respondents alleging that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Jeep Scorpio, which was driven by the respondent No.1 herein. Respondent No.2, is the Insurance Company which had insured that vehicle and in that capacity compensation was claimed from the said Insurance company as well. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. While calculating the compensation, which is payable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-, which was the salary drawn by the deceased, who was working as a Teacher in Ujala Modern Senior Secondary School Kaith, District Panipat. The Tribunal held that the deceased must be spending 1/3rd of the salary, i.e., Rs.2,500/- upon himself and contributing to all the members of his family Rs.5,000/- thereby arriving at yearly dependency of the claimants at Rs.60,000/-, determined the compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- payable to the appellants and in addition thereto Rs.10,000/- is given as expenditure incurred towards last rites and funeral of the deceased and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant, widow of the deceased. In this manner, total compensation of Rs.9,7,5000/- is awarded. 3. The appellants are not satisfied with the amount of compensation. Hence this appeal. 4. As per the roster, such appeals are to be heard by a Single Bench. It is also good practice of this Court that these kinds of appeals arising out of motor accidents, are referred to “DAILY LOK ADALAT”, which is the permanent Lok Adalat set up under the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act. The learned Single Judge referred the present appeal also for settlement before the Lok Adalat. When the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat found inconsistent approach, while fixing the compensation, in the judgments of this Court on one particular aspect viz. addition on account of notional increase in the monthly income. 5. The learned Single Judge referred the present appeal also for settlement before the Lok Adalat. When the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat found inconsistent approach, while fixing the compensation, in the judgments of this Court on one particular aspect viz. addition on account of notional increase in the monthly income. 5. As pointed out above, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income at Rs.7,500/- and further deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased to the figure of dependency. The grievance of the appellants is that the deduction should have been 1/4th as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, it did not make any addition on account of notional increase in the monthly income. Another grievance of the appellants is that at least 30% notional increase in the monthly income had to be made in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., [ 2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897 : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 794 (SC)] : 2012 STPL (Web) 248 SC and on addition of 30%, monthly income of the deceased should have been Rs.9750/-. Though at the same time, it was also conceded that since the deceased was 37 years of age, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 16. 6. Be as it may, the controversy before the Lok Adalat related to the question of addition of 30% notional income to be added to the monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. The Lok Adalat took note of the fact that following Santosh Devi (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 01.8.2012 (FAO No.4111 of 2011) has granted 30% increase in the monthly earnings towards future prospects. However, another Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 18.9.2012 (FAO No.4283 of 2011) titled Samina & Others Vs. Faruk and Others held that there cannot be a rule of thumb for every case that 30% increase must be provided and held that it would be grossly unjustified and 30% increase was not admissible. 7. However, another Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 18.9.2012 (FAO No.4283 of 2011) titled Samina & Others Vs. Faruk and Others held that there cannot be a rule of thumb for every case that 30% increase must be provided and held that it would be grossly unjustified and 30% increase was not admissible. 7. Because of contradictory approach of two judgments of different Benches in the aforesaid cases, matter could not be progressed and settled before the Lok Adalat and therefore, the matter has been sent back to the Court for adjudication. At the same time, Lok Adalat noted that since this point is arising almost everyday in various cases, it would be appropriate if a larger Bench considers the issue. That is the raison d’etre for putting up the appeal before this Division Bench. On this particular issue, the Supreme Court had made the following observations in the last three lines of Paragraph 24 in Sarla Verma (Supra), which reads as under: “We therefore reject the contention that the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the death and before the final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation.” 8. The aforesaid lines give an impression that the notional increase in the monthly income is not to be made. However, this impression was dispelled by the Supreme Court itself interpreting the aforesaid three lines in Santosh Devi (Supra). The Court made following pertinent observations in this behalf: “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 income 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.” 9. 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 income 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.” 9. As noted above, in its judgment dated 01.8.2012 (in FAO No.4111 of 2011), a Single Bench of this Court followed and granted 30% notional increase in the following manner: “Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in FAO No.4111 of 2011 would submit that even an agricultural labourer would earn not less than Rs.4000/- per month. But unfortunately, the Tribunal had arrived at the monthy earning capacity of deceased Jatinder Singh who owned 8 ½ acres of land as Rs.3900/-. He would submit that the Tribunal had totally ignored the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1897 : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 794 (SC)] : 2012(2) RCR(Civil) 882, wherein 30% increase in the monthly earning towards future prospects has been ordered to be awarded even in a case where there was death of a casual labourer or a person employed privately.” It was further observed in the said judgment as under: “As already pointed out by me, it has been established by the appellants that deceased Jatinder Singh was looking after a sizeable extent of agricultural land measuring 8 ½ acres. Of course, there is no evidence to establish that he was carrying on a business in mobiles. In my considered view, a person who owned 8 ½ acres of land and supervised the same during the course of cultivation would have contributed at least a sum of Rs.4500/- per month in terms of money to his family. As per the afore-referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, 30% increase towards future prospects will have to be added to the income of the deceased.” 10. As per the afore-referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, 30% increase towards future prospects will have to be added to the income of the deceased.” 10. On the other hand, Sameena (supra) decided on 18.9.2012, another Single Judge of this Court did not deem it to be a rule of thumb that such an increase has to be granted in every case and refused to enhance the income of 30%. Discussion, in this behalf, in the said order reads as under: “As regards the income, the Tribunal has taken the average monthly income to be Rs.3,500/-. A provision for enhancement by 30% was made by the Supreme Court in a situation where the income taken for the deceased was Rs.1,100/- per month. The case related to an accident in the year 1991 while deciding a case in the year 2012 the Court found that the income assessed at Rs.1,100/- per month would be grossly unjust and provided a 30% increase and too the income of Rs.1,900/- and odd per month. The 30% increase was, therefore, seen in the contest of exceedingly low income taken which required to be escalated to an amount which was reasonably appropriate. I cannot take it as a rule of thumb for every case that 30% increase must be provided even when the income shown was accepted by the Tribunal at Rs.3,500/- per month. I am prepared to err on the wrong side and take the average income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month.” 11. It is in these circumstances that the matter is placed before the Division Bench. As already noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, in order to answer the issue, it would be necessary to discuss the judgments of Sarla Verma (supra) and Santosh Devi (supra) in detail. In order to understand the ratio of those judgments, this exercise is necessary because of the reason that the answer depends upon the proper appreciation of the ratio in these two cases. 12. In Sarla Verma (supra), which has become a hallmark in the subordinate judiciary for quantifying the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court specifically dealt with the issue in regard to future prospects. Four questions were framed for determination. 12. In Sarla Verma (supra), which has become a hallmark in the subordinate judiciary for quantifying the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court specifically dealt with the issue in regard to future prospects. Four questions were framed for determination. Question No.1, as framed, was to the following effect: “(i) Whether the future prospects can be taken into account for determining the income of the deceased: If so, whether pay revisions that occurred during the pendency of the claim proceedings or appeals therefrom should be taken into account?” 13. The apex Court felt it appropriate to take note of the general principles relating to assessment of compensation in both the cases arising out of motor accidents. Citing earlier two judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, [ 1994(2) SCC 176 ] and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, [ 1996(4) SCC 362 ], the earlier confusion on this aspect was set to rest with specific principle that loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deduction therefrom the amount spent on the deceased and assessing the loss to the dependent(s) of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier. This method enunciated in Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601] was approved while laying down the aforesaid formula. The Court thereafter took note of the fact that there was lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding the compensation which was viewed as a matter of grave concern inasmuch as to arrive at ‘just compensation’, different yardsticks were adopted. The Bench remarked that even when it was not possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, there should be an attempt to standardize determinants so that there is consistency in the approach and compensation awarded by the Tribunal. “Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions”. The Court was of the view that when the factors and the inputs are the same, and the formula and the legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just decision. 14. The Court was of the view that when the factors and the inputs are the same, and the formula and the legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just decision. 14. Thereafter, note was taken of the three facts which need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death, namely, - (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. After delineating the aforesaid factors, which need to be determined while arriving at the just compensation, the Court formulated three guidelines/steps which need to be taken to have uniformity and consistency, i.e.: Step-1: Ascertaining multiplicand; Step-2: Ascertaining multiplier; and Step-3: Actual calculation After stating these general principles, the court answered the first question with which we are concerned directly in the instant case, namely, addition to income for future prospects. For better understanding, the entire discussion on this aspect and the answer given need to be reproduced, which are as under:- “Question (i) – addition to income for future prospects 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. In Susamma Thomas, 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. 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 was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav [ 1996 (3) SCC 179 ], 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 the 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, Geological Survey of India [ 2003 (3) SCC 148 ], as against the actual salary income of Rs.42,000/- per annum, (Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this court assumed 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. 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 standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. 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 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 Court then took note of some decisions in para-10 and found that the earlier approach was for increasing the income, applying different yardsticks. This necessitated adopting a definite criteria as a rule of thumb, in the following manner: (a) Addition of 50% where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age; (b) Addition of 30% in those cases where the deceased was 40 to 50 years; (c) No addition to be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years; (d) In case where deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), normally no addition is to be made and actual annual income at the time of death is to be taken. The Court was categorical in observing that even when the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, the aforesaid method is to be adopted to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks. 16. Insofar as cases of compensation on the death of self-employed or those on fixed salary are concerned, while holding that usually it should be on the basis of actual income at the time of death, meaning thereby there should not be any addition on account of future prospects, the Court almost held that it should not be followed as a routine and departure therefrom should be made only in “rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances”, though the Court did not express what would be those rare and exceptional cases and what would constitute special circumstances. 17. A reading of this judgment signifies that the endeavour of the Court was to standardize the computation of compensation so that different yardsticks are not adopted. 17. A reading of this judgment signifies that the endeavour of the Court was to standardize the computation of compensation so that different yardsticks are not adopted. While doing so and fixing different rates at which addition to income for future prospects could be made, the Court was of the view that no addition is to be made in case of a person dying at the age which is more than 50 years or in case where deceased was self-employed, or in those cases where the deceased was on a fixed salary i.e. without provision for annual increments. In the present case, we are directly concerned with this aspect. It came up for discussion and is commented upon by the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi (supra). 18. In Santosh Devi’s case, the Tribunal had determined the compensation by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month and after deducting Rs.500/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, dependency was taken at Rs.1000/- per month. On this income, multiplier of 11 was applied. No addition on account of future prospects was made. In appeal, the High Court applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 11 with interest @ 7% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of appeal till realisation. The dependents approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court. Apart from other arguments, it was specifically argued that benefit of 30% increase in the income of deceased was not given even when the deceased would have earned for next 25 years and the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) was relied upon. The Bench of the Court dealing with the said case took note of the philosophy behind awarding just compensation, which is reflected in the following observations in the case of Sarla Dixit vs. Balwant Yadav, 1996(3) SCC 179 : “In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependants/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply—pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for nonpecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life, etc. The Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide Sections 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be “just compensation” in the facts of a case.” 19. The Bench thereafter discussed Sarla Verma’s case (supra), laying down the guidelines (as a thumb rule) and remarked that in the said case the Bench had: “made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal and the High court in the matter of awarding of compensation by laying down strait jacket formula under different headings…..”. The three headings discussed in Sarla Verma (supra) including ‘addition to income for future prospects’ from Sarla Verma (supra) were reproduced and on that following comments have been made:- “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 naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed 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. 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. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised 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 corresponding 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. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. 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. 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 selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income 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.” 20. The Court then gave reasons as to why income of self employed persons or those on fixed salary would not remain static and there will always be scope for better earnings and high emoluments. After giving these reasons with examples, the Bench was of the opinion that in the observations made by the earlier Bench in paragraph-24 of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it was not intended by the Court to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition to the income of the person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. It was categorically held that even in those cases, 30% increase is to be given. In that case, the Court, on this account, made addition @ 30% while modifying the award in other respects as well. From the reading of the two judgments, one thing which clearly emerges is that in Sarla Verms (supra), the two-member Bench felt disturbed by the varying approach of different courts in applying totally different yardsticks for arriving at “just compensation”. In order to ensure that imponderables and uncertainties do not occur and there is uniformity in the approach by the Courts in all motor accident cases while determining the compensation, the Bench deemed it proper to lay down fixed norms, insofar as addition on account of future prospects is concerned. Thus, the rationale behind adopting this approach was to have same yardsticks to eschew different methods of calculation, which were being adopted. Weighed by this rationale, the Court stipulated specific percentages, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects, even if it was to be done as a rule of thumb. 21. Thus, the rationale behind adopting this approach was to have same yardsticks to eschew different methods of calculation, which were being adopted. Weighed by this rationale, the Court stipulated specific percentages, depending upon the age of the deceased, towards future prospects, even if it was to be done as a rule of thumb. 21. Insofar as aforesaid rationale and justification given by the Bench in Sarla Verma (supra) is concerned, the same is not interfered with by the subsequent Bench, which decided Santosh Devi (supra). However, in Santosh Devi (supra), the Bench did not accept that part of the order in Sarla Verma (supra) where Sarla Verma (supra) decided not to allow any addition on account of future prospects in those cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision of annual increments, etc.). This aspect is directly commented upon and differed with in Santosh Devi (supra) which is clear from the opening sentence in para-14 where the Bench remarked that “it was 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.” The remarks go to the extent of observing that “it will be naive to say that wages or total emoluments or income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment would remain the same throughout his life.” Giving detailed comments as to how the income/salary of such a person would not remain static and would increase, the Bench not only concluded that the last three lines in para-24 of Sarla Verma (supra) did not intend to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in such cases, the Bench specifically held that it would be “reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time” and in such cases also same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 22. 22. It is clear from the above that whereas in Sarla Verma (supra) the Bench was of the view that no addition on account of future prospects is to be made where the deceased is self-employed or was on a fixed salary without annual increments and departure is to be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances, in Santosh Devi (supra), a diametrically opposite view is taken holding that 30% increase in the total income of such a person over a period of time is to be reasonably presumed and increase on account of future prospects @ 30% should normally be given; meaning thereby it should be denied in exceptional cases. Thereafter, the Court in that case increased the salary by 30% without stating that it was rare and exceptional case involving special circumstances. 23. In such a situation when both the judgments are rendered by two member Benches, the predicament of the Court would be as to which one is to be followed. There would not have been a problem in case one of these judgments was by a larger Bench. In such a case, the solution was to follow the dicta of the larger Bench. This aspect was succinctly dealt with by the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.5390 of 2010 titled as Deepak Kumar and others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi and others, decided on 12.9.2012, in the following manner:- “37. High Courts, and indeed all Courts, are tethered to precedent and the law declared by the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. The doctrine of precedent is essential to ensure consistency and stability in the administration of law or else, if each court is left free to pursue its views regardless of previous judgments of higher courts, or Benches of greater composition, in a hierarchal system, the consequence would be chaos and uncertainty about the law. Here, one recollects the caution administered in Broom v. Cassell & Co., [1972] 1 AER 801 that: “it will never be necessary to say so again, that in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers”. Here, one recollects the caution administered in Broom v. Cassell & Co., [1972] 1 AER 801 that: “it will never be necessary to say so again, that in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers”. The rule was again explained in Davis v. Johnson, (1978) 2 WLR 152 in the following words: “Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.” The Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J, in Ambika Prasad Misra v. State of U.P. AIR 1980 SC 1762 explained that even though a decision might be based on faulty reasoning or might be unsatisfactorily argued, if it is of a higher court and consequently binding, has to be necessarily followed. The following observations in Salmond’s ‘Jurisprudence’, page 215 (11th edition) was referred to: “A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned.” 38. In this context, the Supreme Court held in Shyamaraju Hegde vs U. Venkatesha Bhat & Ors 1988 SCR (1) 340 that: “The Full Bench in the impugned judgment clearly went wrong in holding that the two-Judge Bench of this Court referred to by it had brought about a total change in the position and on the basis of those two judgments. Krishnaji’s case would be no more good law. The decision of a Full Bench consisting of three Judges rendered in Krishnaji’s case was binding on a bench of equal strength unless that decision had directly been overruled by this Court or by necessary implication became unsustainable. Admittedly there is no overruling of Krishnaji’s decision by this Court and on the analysis indicated above it cannot also be said that by necessary implication the ratio therein supported by the direct authority of this Court stood superseded. Judicial propriety warrants that decisions of this Court must be taken as wholly binding on the High Courts. That is the necessary outcome of the tier system.” 24. Judicial propriety warrants that decisions of this Court must be taken as wholly binding on the High Courts. That is the necessary outcome of the tier system.” 24. No doubt, in Santosh Devi (supra), the Bench said that the last three lines of paragraph-24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment did not lay down an absolute rule that there would be no addition in income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages, however, as pointed out above, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Court had specifically stated in those three lines that there would not be any addition on account of future prospects and it should be only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. As both these decisions are of two-member Benches and in Santosh Devi (supra), earlier case of Sarla Verma (supra) is specifically taken note of, it would be safe to follow the later pronouncement. This is one of the accepted principles of ‘stare decisis’ and is explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. A.P. Jaiswal and others, 2001(1) RSJ (SC) 791, in the following words: “Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. These rules and principles are based on public policy and if these are not followed by courts then there will be choas in the administration of justice……” 25. We would also like to point out the approach of different High Courts which is consistent and uniform, viz., in such a situation the High Court is not bound to follow the one which is later in point of time, but may follow the one which according to it, is better in law. This is so held by a Full Bench of this Court in Indo-Swiss Time Ltd. vs. Umarao, AIR 1981, Punjab & Haryana 213. This is so held by a Full Bench of this Court in Indo-Swiss Time Ltd. vs. Umarao, AIR 1981, Punjab & Haryana 213. The Madras High Court in R. Rama Subbnarayalu v. Rengammal, A.I.R. 1962 Madras 450, made the following pertinent observations: “Where the conflict is between two decisions pronounced by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges, and the subordinate Court after a careful examination of the decisions came to the conclusion that both of them directly apply to the case before it, it will then be at liberty to follow that decision which seems to it more correct, whether such decision be the later or the earlier one” 26. We are of the opinion that for very weighty reasons given by the Bench in Sarla Verma (supra), normally, rule should be to make an addition on account of future prospects in the income of a person @ 30%, even in the case of a deceased who was self-employed or who was paid fixed wages without increments, inasmuch as, it would be presumed that those who are self-employed or on fixed wages without increments, their income in future would grow. In addition to the examples given by the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi (supra), we would like to point out that the income of the self employed professionals like doctors, lawyers, chartered accountants normally grow with experience in maturer years by leaps and bounds. It is, therefore, not even feasible to limit the discretion of the MACT in a given case to make addition by fixed percentage. No doubt, the percentage of addition which is suggested in Sarla Verma (supra) to achieve uniformity may be with laudable objective, however, denying the benefit to certain classes of cases is not found justifiable in Santosh Devi (supra). Insofar as this Court is concerned, we are of the opinion that addition in income @ 30% on account of future prospects will be made in those cases where the deceased was self-employed or was paid fixed wages. This can be denied only if some specific evidence is produced and circumstances shown by producing material on record that there was no chance of such an increase in a given case. 27. This can be denied only if some specific evidence is produced and circumstances shown by producing material on record that there was no chance of such an increase in a given case. 27. Coming to the application of the aforesaid principle to the present case, here the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.7500/- which was the salary per month drawn by the deceased. An increase @ 30% on account of future prospects would be added thereto. In this way, income of the deceased is determined at Rs.9750/- per month. Though the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, since the appellants concede that deceased was more than 37 years of age, multiplier of 15 would be applicable. The Tribunal is, however, wrong in holding that deceased must be spending 1/3rd of salary on his personal expenses. Going by the members of the family, this would be 1/4th and, therefore, contribution of the deceased, had he not died, to the family is 3/4th. Consequently, the compensation is worked out to Rs.13,16,000/- (9750x12x15x¾). We further grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and thereby award total compensation of Rs.13,36,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the said compensation stands increased by Rs.3,61,000/-. The said increase in compensation shall be paid by the respondents/Insurance Company to the appellants along with interest @ 9% , to be calculated from the date of filing of claim petition. 28. Appeal allowed in the aforesaid terms. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs.