JUDGMENT 1. C.M.A.No.2459 of 2013 has been filed by the Claimants and C.M.A.No.3681 of 2013 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P No 2531 of 2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranks in the Original Petition. 3. The 1st claimant is the mother, the 2nd claimant is the father and 3rd claimant is the sister of C.Rajasekar, who died in the fatal accident that took place on 28.06.2010. On the date of the accident, the deceased was riding the two wheeler and one Mr.P.Vijayakumar was the pillion rider. The case of the claimants was that the lorry of the 1st respondent hit the bike from behind as a result of which the said Rajasekar died on the spot and the pillion rider viz., Vijayakumar sustained injuries. The claim petition was filed seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads alleging, inter alia, that the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent was responsible for the accident. A separate claim was filed by P.Vijayakumar since the same is not the subject matter of these appeals. This court is not going into the factual aspects with regard to the claim petition of Vijayakumar. 4. The 1st respondent did not appear and the 2nd respondent resisted the claim alleging that the lorry did not have fitness certificate, that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident and that the age and income of the deceased as alleged in the claim petition was not true. The Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a compensation of Rs.8,12,000/- with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum and also directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the 1st respondent. Aggrieved, the claimants have filed C.M.A No 2459/2013 for enhancement and the respondent has filed C.M.A No 3681/2013 challenging only the quantum. 5. Aggrieved, the claimants have filed C.M.A No 2459/2013 for enhancement and the respondent has filed C.M.A No 3681/2013 challenging only the quantum. 5. The counsel for the claimants contended that the claims Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- contrary to the evidence of PW3, and since the appellant was only 20 years at the time of accident and the tribunal ought to have awarded 50% compensation towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses must only be 1/3 and not 50%, the application of multiplier at 15 based on the age of the mother of the deceased was also wrong and that only paltry sum is awarded towards funeral expenses and no compensation was awarded towards loss of expectation to life. The counsel for the claimants also contended that the age of the deceased must be considered while deciding the multiplier and relied upon the decision in RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH (2013 ACJ 1403) to claim that the income of the deceased must be increased by 50% towards future prospects. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that the award of the Tribunal fixing the salary at Rs.6,000/- is baseless and 30% of the income cannot be added towards future prospects as the deceased was a bachelor. The counsel also assailed the award contending that the award under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection as excess. The counsel placing reliance upon the Judgments reported in AMRIT BHANU SHALI v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2012 ACJ 2002) and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SANTOSH KHANDELWAL (2013 (2) TNMAC 74 (SC)), contended that 50 % of the income must be deducted towards expenses and that the issue regarding the percentage of income to be considered while deciding future prospects is still pending before the Honourable Apex Court and therefore, requested this court to reduce the award. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has not appeared even before this Court. I have perused the original records of the Claims Tribunal. 8. The deceased at the time of accident was only 21 years. The Tribunal, after elaborate discussion and considering the evidence of PW1, PW3 and Exhibits P7-transfer certificate for BBA Course and Ex.P8, Certificate issued by Apollo Computer Education Ltd., has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-. I have perused the original records of the Claims Tribunal. 8. The deceased at the time of accident was only 21 years. The Tribunal, after elaborate discussion and considering the evidence of PW1, PW3 and Exhibits P7-transfer certificate for BBA Course and Ex.P8, Certificate issued by Apollo Computer Education Ltd., has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-. PW3, in his evidence, has deposed that the deceased was a part time employee in the Medical Shop by name Sangam Medicals as Computer Biller cum salesman drawing Rs.5000/- per month and Rs.50 as daily batta. However no proof was produced before the Tribunal to that effect. Considering that if the accident had not occurred, the deceased would have earned a minimum salary of Rs.6,000/- this court finds no illegality in fixing Rs.6000/- as income per month. 9. The next point is the multiplier. The Tribunal has considered the age of the mother to fix the multiplier and fixed the same at 15. The age of the deceased was 21 years as evident from Exhibit P7 and the multiplier applicable to persons of that age is 18 as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma’s Case reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act being a social welfare legislation, the highest multiplier is to be considered for awarding compensation. 10. In the judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002, which was, in fact, relied upon by the counsel for the 2nd respondent towards principles regarding deduction of expenses, the Apex Court has while dealing with the adoption of multiplier regarding deceased bachelors held as follows: “17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation. 18. In the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.” 11. The purpose of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award a “Just” Compensation by considering the earning capacity of the deceased as if he had not met with the accident. Considering the dictum of the Apex Court in the judgment referred above and the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18 is fixed. 12. The next question is whether compensation towards future prospects can be awarded and if yes at what percentage. The 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. Following the above Judgment, Apex Court, in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, has held that there must be an addition of 50% to the income in cases where the age of the deceased is 40 years. 14. However, the same was contested by the counsel for the second respondent by relying upon the judgment reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 74, wherein the Apex Court has decided to examine whether self employed persons are entitled to future prospects as there were two different Three Judge Bench judgments on the issue of awarding compensation towards future prospects in cases of self-employed persons. 15. The said judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of this case as the issue involved in this case is whether compensation can be awarded towards future prospects in case of a bachelor. The award of compensation is an attempt to mitigate the financial loss of the dependants and alleviate the pain the sufferings caused by the death of the deceased. 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. This society is growing. Never has there been a gloom in the development of the society. 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. Moreso, would be the motivation and necessity if in case he gets married. Never has there been a gloom in the development of the society. 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. Moreso, would be the motivation and necessity if in case he gets married. 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. Hence, even though the deceased was a bachelor, the claimants are entitled to addition towards future prospects by 50% on the income. 16. The next point is regarding funeral expenses. In the Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the claimants reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, the Honourable Apex Court has held in para 21 as follows: “We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'funeral expenses'. The 'price index', it is a fact, has gone up in that regard also. The head 'funeral expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'funeral expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000." 17. Considering the culture and practices in the society and following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgment, I find the claim is reasonable and therefore, enhance the compensation towards funeral expenses to Rs.25,000/-. 18. With regard to deduction at 50%, this court is of the opinion that the claimants were not dependant entirely on the salary of the deceased. Therefore, as contended by the 2nd respondent, this court does not find any illegality in deducting 50% towards expenses. 19. The next claim is loss of expectation of life. 18. With regard to deduction at 50%, this court is of the opinion that the claimants were not dependant entirely on the salary of the deceased. Therefore, as contended by the 2nd respondent, this court does not find any illegality in deducting 50% towards expenses. 19. The next claim is loss of expectation of life. In view of the fact that the compensation towards loss in earning was awarded and now increased, this court does not find anything perverse in the award of the Tribunal for failure to grant any compensation under the head loss of expectation of life. However, upon perusal of the award, this court finds that no compensation has been awarded for mental agony that the claimants would be put to throughout their life. The vaccum of loosing a person can never be filled. The absence of the deceased would certainly haunt the claimants in many important situations in life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards mental agony. This court finds no valid reasons to interfere with the other portions of the award and the award is enhanced as follows Income of the deceased Rs. 6000 + 3000 (50% addition) 9000 Less ½ towards expenses 4500 Total p.m 4500 Loss of earnings 4500 ×12×18 9,72,000 Additions towards Mental Agony 25,000/- Funeral Expenses 25000/- Love and Affection 1,00,000/- Total 11,22,000 Enhancement from Award 3,10,000/- 20. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the difference amount with the award amount with same interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants shall remit the additional court fee within four weeks failing which the enhanced amount shall not carry any interest. Out of the enhanced amount, claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/= each and the third claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/=. On deposit by the second respondent, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application. In the result, the C.M.A.No.2459 of 13 is partly allowed and C.M.A. No.3681 of 2013 is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.