JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Didwana ('the Tribunal'), whereby, a compensation of Rs. 9,40,780/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 28.02.2006 till the date of payment has been awarded. 2. The claimants have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as noticed above. 3. The facts in brief are that the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed an application for compensation ('the application') before the Tribunal, inter alia, with the averments that on 07.12.2005 at about 10:45 AM a motor cycle bearing registration No.RJ21-5M-9072 ('9072') was being driven by one Prithvi Raj rashly and negligently, who struck Habib Khan, a pedestrian, who suffered injuries and died on account of the said accident. It was, inter alia, stated in the application that deceased Habib Khan aged 40 years was serving as a Constable with the Rajasthan Police and has recently passed examination of Head Constable and had a bright future and claimed a sum of Rs. 19,38,440/- as compensation under various heads from said Prithvi Raj - driver, Mohd. Ahsan - owner of the vehicle and appellant Insurance Company. 4. A reply to the application was filed by the Insurance Company and besides denying the other averments, it was stated that in the FIR it was indicated that the accident occurred by motor cycle No.RJ21-4M-1284, which was being driven by Pappu Ram and as the said Pappu Ram was not having a driving licence and the said motor cycle was not insured and the deceased being a Police Constable, the motor cycle in question which is insured with the Insurance Company has been involved and rider and owner of motor cycle 9072 which has not at all been referred to in the FIR cannot be held guilty and consequently Insurance Company is not liable. 5. A reply to the application was filed by respondent No.1 Prithvi Raj and respondent No.2 Modh. Ahsan, who denied the averments made in the application and ultimately stated that as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability, if any, remains that of the Insurance Company. 6. 5. A reply to the application was filed by respondent No.1 Prithvi Raj and respondent No.2 Modh. Ahsan, who denied the averments made in the application and ultimately stated that as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability, if any, remains that of the Insurance Company. 6. The application was thereafter amended by the claimants and one Pappu Ram and Mutlib Ali were impleaded as respondent Nos.4 and 5 as driver and owner of the motor cycle RJ21-4M-6284 (RJ21-4M-1284) respectively. Amended averments were made in the application to the effect that the driver of motor cycle 9072 Prithvi Raj was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and struck motor cycle RJ21-4M-6284 ('6284'), which lost its balance and struck Habib Khan, a pedestrian, who died on account of the said accident and, therefore, all the drivers, owners and the Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable. 7. The Tribunal framed five issues and on behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited. No one appeared in the witness box on behalf of both the drivers and owners of motor cycles (9072 & 6284) and Insurance Company produced one witness to exhibit the insurance policy. 8. The Tribunal arrived at the finding that the motor cycle 9072 was being driven rashly and negligently and it struck motor cycle 6284, which in turn struck Habib Khan, a pedestrian, who died as a result of the injuries received in said accident and the Insurance Company failed to prove that the motor cycle 9072 was involved on account of collusion between the claimants and the owner and driver of motor cycle 9072 as the deceased was a Police Constable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,03,780/- as compensation for loss of income, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and consortium to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the mother of the deceased, Rs. 5,000/- each to the three children of the deceased and Rs. 5,000/- towards travelling charges and in total awarded sum of Rs. 9,40,780/- with interest as noticed hereinbefore. 9. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and consortium to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the mother of the deceased, Rs. 5,000/- each to the three children of the deceased and Rs. 5,000/- towards travelling charges and in total awarded sum of Rs. 9,40,780/- with interest as noticed hereinbefore. 9. Questioning the findings recorded by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that it is apparent from the record that the motor cycle 9072 has been subsequently involved, as there is no reference of the said motor cycle in the FIR lodged immediately after the accident and specific allegations in the FIR have been made against Pappu Ram, who was driving motor cycle 6284. It is apparent that only on coming to know of the fact that neither Pappu Ram was having any driving licence nor the said motor cycle was insured and on account of the fact that deceased was a Police Constable, the motor cycle 9072, which is insured with the appellant Insurance Company has been involved, the collusion is thus apparent. It was further submitted that no evidence in support of the averments made in the application has been produced. The so called eye witness Jagdish Prasad AW-2 was introduced later on and the person who lodged FIR has not been examined and, consequently, there is no material available on record to come to the conclusion that the motor cycle 9072 was in fact involved in the accident and, consequently, the judgment and award deserve to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimants vehemently submitted that it is apparent from the record and the evidence produced before the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle 9072, which struck motor cycle 6284 and the deceased Habib Khan, who was pedestrian got killed. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has thoroughly considered the issue raised by the Insurance Company regarding non-involvement of motor cycle 9072 and after considering the material available on record, it has returned a categorical finding, which does not warrant any interference from this Court. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has thoroughly considered the issue raised by the Insurance Company regarding non-involvement of motor cycle 9072 and after considering the material available on record, it has returned a categorical finding, which does not warrant any interference from this Court. It was further contended that the Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence in this regard and has also failed to bring out anything in cross-examination of AW-2 Jagdish Prasad to support its contention regarding non-involvement of motor cycle 9072. It was open for the Insurance Company to produce evidence including that of the person, who lodged the FIR and merely because the said informant has not been produced, it cannot be presumed that the plea raised by the claimants is incorrect. 11. Coming to the cross-objections, it was submitted that the Tribunal while considering the issue relating to future prospects has wrongly discarded Exhibit-22, which is a calculation sheet signed by the Additional Superintendent of Police on account of non-production of said Additional Superintendent of Police. Further, despite the fact that there were five dependents on the deceased Habid Khan, deduction of ⅓rd has been made. It was submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the grant of compensation on account of future prospects for a Government employee like the deceased and deduction of only 1/4th amount is now a settled law and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation on account of future prospects and reduced deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The deduction of account of House Rent Allowance was also questioned. 12. Replying to the arguments relating to cross-objections, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The document Exhibit-22 has not been proved and, there is no question of any enhancement. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. 12. Replying to the arguments relating to cross-objections, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The document Exhibit-22 has not been proved and, there is no question of any enhancement. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is an admitted fact that the FIR (Exhibit-1) was lodged by one Prema Ram immediately after the accident, it was indicated by the informant that deceased Habib Khan was struck by motor cycle 6284 being driven by Pappu Ram (in the entire police investigation the vehicle number has been indicated as 1284 as the said number was wrongly indicated on the motor cycle). However, during the police investigation, Pappu Ram made a complaint and on reinvestigation the involvement of motor cycle 9072 was found out by the police and when a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Exhibit-4) was issued to the owner of the motor cycle 9072, he indicated that the vehicle was being driven by Prithvi Raj, to whom the said vehicle was lent for his personal work and 'at the time of accident he was driving the motor cycle' and based on the police investigation charge-sheet was filed against Prithvi Raj only for offence under Sections 279, 377 and 304-A IPC. 15. In the application initially filed by the claimants, they impleaded Prithvi Raj and Mohd. Ahsan driver and owner of motor cycle 9072, who according to them were responsible for the accident. It is significant to note that the charge-sheet was filed on 31.12.2005 and the application was filed on 28.02.2006 and, therefore, there is no question of the claimants, who initially only impleaded driver and owner of motor cycle 9072, can be accused of any collusion in this regard. Merely because despite the availability of the entire material, the counsel did not deem it appropriate to implead Pappu Ram and Mutalib Ali initially, cannot militate against the claimants. AW-2 Jagdish Prasad was clearly indicated as witness in the charge-sheet and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was propped up later on for supporting the alleged story. The said Jagdish Prasad withstood the cross-examination and merely because he belonged to the same village, to which, deceased Habib Khan belong, cannot be a reason to disbelieve the said witness. AW-2 Jagdish Prasad was clearly indicated as witness in the charge-sheet and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was propped up later on for supporting the alleged story. The said Jagdish Prasad withstood the cross-examination and merely because he belonged to the same village, to which, deceased Habib Khan belong, cannot be a reason to disbelieve the said witness. The Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence whatsoever either by summoning the witnesses and/or producing them on its own. 16. The Tribunal has thoroughly considered issue raised by the Insurance Company regarding collusion and has reached a conclusion that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the said issue. Even in the present appeal, nothing material has been brought out so as to disturb the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal by elaborately discussing the issue and, as such, the same is upheld. No other point was raised by the appellant Insurance Company in support of its appeal except for the non involvement of motor cycle 9072. 17. Now coming to the cross-objections raised by the claimants, it is not in dispute that deceased Habib Khan was a Police Constable and was getting Rs. 8,484/- as gross income and his last pay slip Exhibit-20 was accepted, which, inter alia, included washing allowance, mess allowance and house rent allowance, which were deducted by the Tribunal and his income was taken as Rs. 7,532/- per month and after deducting ⅓rd as his personal expenses, his monthly contribution was taken at Rs. 5,021/-, which came to Rs. 60,252/- as annual contribution and as his age was 40 years, a multiplier of 15 was adopted and the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 9,03,780/- towards loss of income. No future prospects were added to the said income and other amounts as noticed hereinbefore were awarded. 18. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which view has been reiterated by Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 4646 and 4627 of 2009 decided on 02.04.2013 . 19. The deduction of house rent allowance of Rs. 302/- by the Tribunal is ex facie contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvir Singh Matoliya & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 4646 and 4627 of 2009 decided on 02.04.2013 . 19. The deduction of house rent allowance of Rs. 302/- by the Tribunal is ex facie contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvir Singh Matoliya & Ors. v. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 363 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "8. We, therefore, are of the opinion that 'Dearness Allowance' and 'House Rent Allowance' payable to the deceased should have been included for determining the income of the deceased and consequently the amount of compensation. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we direct that in calculating the amount of compensation, the dearness allowance as also the house rent allowance should also be taken into consideration." 20. In view thereof, the deduction of Rs. 302/- on account of house rent allowance is consequently set aside. Further, it is not in dispute that five persons - claimants were dependent on deceased Habib Khan and, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/4th only is permissible and further in view of the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) regarding future prospects, which reads as thus:- "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 standardise 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 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." 21. The claimants are further entitled to addition of 30% as future prospects. 22. In view of the above discussion, out of the monthly income of Rs. 8,484/- after deducting washing allowance and mess allowance, the salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 7,834/- and after deducting 1/4th of the said amount as personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency per month comes to Rs. 5,875/- and the annual dependency comes to Rs. 70,500/- and after adopting multiplier of 15 the loss of income comes to Rs. 10,57,500/- and on adding 30% future prospects, the compensation under the head loss of income comes to Rs. 13,74,750/-, to which, the claimants are entitled. The amount of Rs. 37,000/- awarded under other heads does not require any interference and the claimants would be further entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 4,70,970/- from the date of filing application i.e. 28.02.2006. 23. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,11,750/- instead of Rs. 9,40,780/- and they would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 28.02.2006 on the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,70,970/-. The apportionment of the enhanced amount with interest among the claimants would be as per the award passed by the Tribunal. As all the children of the deceased are now major, the enhanced amount with interest be paid in their respective saving bank accounts. No costs.Appeal Dismissed, Cross - Objection Allowed. *******