JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award in M.C.O.P. No.367 of 2009 dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Dharmapuri. 2. The appellants herein filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the fatal accident of Mr. A.S. Prasanth, on 02.02.2009 at about 17.30 hours opposite to Dam Division Road Bus Stop in NH7. The first claimant is the mother, the second claimant is the father and third claimant is the brother of the deceased. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that Late Mr.A.S.Prasanth, was a pillion rider along with one Mr.Jakkesh in a Bajaj Pulsor Bike bearing registration No.KA-05-EY-8473, which was driven by his friend Hari Prasath. The deceased along with his two friends were returning from Krishnagiri to their home Karimangalam. At about 17.30 hours, when they were nearing Dam Division Road Bus Stop, the container lorry with registration No.AP-09-TA-1615 belonging to the first respondent coming behind the bike, driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner lost control and hit the moped thereby causing fatal injury to the deceased. A.S.Prasanth, who passed away on the spot. 4. The case of the claimants was that the accident occurred purely due to the rash, negligent and careless driving of the lorry. They also claimed that the deceased was a holder of Diploma in E.C.E. and was taking care of the Rice & Flour Mill of the second claimant and earned a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month and sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. An application seeking leave to pay court fee of Rs.9,000/- at a later date was filed and the same was allowed. 5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the first respondent remained exparte. 6. Per contra, the second respondent Insurance Company opposed the claim on grounds that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bike, that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid licence and that the existence of the policy had to be verified. The second respondent contended that the driver of the bike lost control, as he was sitting in the extreme front part and that the deceased also contributed towards negligence. The second respondent also disputed the age, occupation of the income and opposed the claim. The second respondent contended that the driver of the bike lost control, as he was sitting in the extreme front part and that the deceased also contributed towards negligence. The second respondent also disputed the age, occupation of the income and opposed the claim. The application filed by the second respondent under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed. 7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the documentary and oral evidence, considering the age of the second claimant fixed multiplier at 11, the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and after deducting personal expenses, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,77,000/- with 7.5% interest proportionately dividing the award amongst the claimants based on the status with costs as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 8. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- contrary to the evidence of PW1, since the appellant was only 20 years at the time of accident the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future prospects, the application of multiplier at 11 based on the age of the father of the deceased was also wrong and that award of paltry sums towards love and affection, transport and funeral charges are also very low. The learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 [AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS] to claim that the age of the deceased must be considered while deciding the multiplier and (2013) 9 SCC 54 [RAJESH AND OTHERS vs. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS] to claim that the income of the deceased must be increased by 50% towards future prospects. The learned counsel pleaded to enhance the compensation despite the fact that the claim amount is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- in this appeal and submitted to pay the appropriate Court Fee on such enhancement. 9. In reply, the learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the claimants have not produced any proof towards the employment of the deceased so as to fix the income. The qualification of the deceased was also not proved by the appropriate documentary evidences. Since the father of the deceased is having self-sufficiency, there is no question of consideration with regard to future prospects. The qualification of the deceased was also not proved by the appropriate documentary evidences. Since the father of the deceased is having self-sufficiency, there is no question of consideration with regard to future prospects. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award after considering the oral and documentary evidences and that in view of the reasoning of the Tribunal, the award need not be interfered with. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent has not appeared even before this Court. I have perused the original records of the Claims Tribunal. 11. The deceased at the time of accident was only 20 years. The Tribunal has fixed the daily income of the deceased at Rs.200/- and assumed that the deceased could have worked only for 20 days every month. The PW1, in his evidence has deposed that the deceased was taking care of his Mill and earned Rs.6,000/- every month, but no proof was produced before the Tribunal to that effect. However, there is no illegality in fixing Rs.200/- per day as income. Further, it cannot be assumed that he can work only for 20 days in a month. PW1 during his evidence has deposed that the deceased was healthy and energetic at the time of accident. The deceased would have just crossed the teens. The energy and dreams of a young man would certainly have motivated him to work more. Hence considering the age of the deceased, number of working days in a month are fixed at 26 with 4 weeks with two extra working days and excluding sundays. 12. The next point is the multiplier. The Tribunal has considered the age of the father to fix the multiplier and fixed the same at 11. The Tribunal has observed that the highest multiplier has to be considered for fixing the multiplier. The age of the deceased and the age of the dependant brother was 16 years and the multiplier applicable to persons of that age is 16. The age of the first claimant is 40 years. She falls under cluster where if she had crossed 40, the multiplier would be 15 and if she was exactly 40, the multiplier would be 15. The Tribunal has confused itself with the age of the highest claimant and the highest multiplier. The age of the first claimant is 40 years. She falls under cluster where if she had crossed 40, the multiplier would be 15 and if she was exactly 40, the multiplier would be 15. The Tribunal has confused itself with the age of the highest claimant and the highest multiplier. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act being a social welfare legislation, the highest multiplier is to be considered for awarding compensation. In the judgment reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 [AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS], relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 held as follows: "15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 13. Considering the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred above and that the deceased was also at cluster period at 20 years, the multiplier of 16 is fixed at the time of accident and among the three claimants, as the highest multiplier. 14. The next question is whether compensation towards future prospects can be awarded. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi’s Case reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 has held as follows: "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 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. 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 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. 15. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. 16. The Tribunal’s observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated dependant on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross-examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons who had become major can no longer be regarded dependant on the deceased. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is declared that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,94,840 [Rs.1,500 + 30% of Rs.1,500 = Rs.1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses = Rs.1,755 x 12 x 14 =Rs.2,94,840]. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be Rs.3,19,840/-. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,42,340/- (Rs.3,19,840 - Rs.1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realisation. 18. Respondent No.1 – Insurance Company is directed to pay to the appellant the total amount of compensation within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered to her at the address given in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant." 15. Following the above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 [RAJESH AND OTHERS vs. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS] has held that there must be an addition of 50% to the income in cases where the age of the deceased is 40 years. 16. The income of the deceased herein was fixed at Rs.200/- per day. As age goes by, every man in the society would only thrive to earn more. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. As a reasonable young man, he would have had aspirations in life which would have motivated him to go for higher income. More so, would be the motivation and necessity if in case he gets married. Certainly, he would not have spent all his future with just the same income of Rs.200/- per day. All these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. This society is growing. Never has there been a gloom in the development of the society. The increasing costs in living would certainly contribute to the increase in income of any person, as he would put in more efforts to earn more and lead a decent living in the society. The concept of awarding compensation towards future prospects is not based on marital status. It is to award a “Just” Compensation by considering the earning capacity of the deceased, as if he had not met with the accident. The concept of awarding compensation towards future prospects is not based on marital status. It is to award a “Just” Compensation by considering the earning capacity of the deceased, as if he had not met with the accident. Hence, even though the deceased was a bachelor, the claimants are entitled to addition towards future prospects and considering the family background an addition of 30% on the income would meet the ends of justice. 17. Finally coming to amounts awarded towards loss of love and affection, transport expenses and funeral expenses, this Court does not find any irregularity in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses. No evidences has been let in to show that more amounts were spent by the appellants. With regard to loss of love and affection, it cannot be measured in terms of money. Love and Affection is the bond that unites a family. The deceased was the eldest son in the family. The love and affection as well as the responsibilities would be first showered upon him. The third claimant is still in teens. A person in teen would certainly look up to his elder brother for guidance and also as a role model. Therefore, I enhance the compensation by Rs.5,000/- each for the first and second claimant and Rs.10,000/- to the third claimant. The next point is funeral expenses. In the claim petition, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was claimed but only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. PW1 in his evidence has claimed that he has spent Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses. Considering the culture and practices in the society, I find the claim reasonable and therefore enhance the compensation towards funeral expenses by further sum of Rs.15,000/-. In fine, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- Loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased Loss of love and affection to the parents and brother of the deceased Transport expenses Funeral expenses Total Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.4000/- x 12 x 2/3 x 11) Rs.3,52,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each) Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.3,77,000/- Awarded by this Court (Rs.200 + 30% x 26 = Rs.6760 x 1/3 = Rs.2250) Rs.4510/- x 12 x 16) Rs.8,65,920/- Rs.35,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.9,25,920/- 18. In the result the appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,77,000/- to Rs.9,25,920/-. In the result the appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,77,000/- to Rs.9,25,920/-. The second respondent is directed to deposit the difference amount of Rs.5,48,920/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. And on such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest, by making necessary application. The claimants are also directed to pay the Court Fee, before the Tribunal, at the time of payment out application. No costs.