JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 12.9.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Case No. 1607/1999. 2. The brief facts noticed are that, on 16.7.1999 one Surendra Mohan Sharma, who is said to be an employee in the Telecom Department (BSNL), Jaipur, was going on his scooter, bearing no. RJ 14 1M 3443, to see his mother, admitted in the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, at about 12:30 P.M. When he was passing through New Sanganer Road, suddenly another scooter, bearing no. RJ 14 23M 0268, hit his scooter from back side as a result of which he bounced down on the road and suffered grievous head injury on account of the accident occurred. The offending vehicle was being driven by one Raj Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. Surendra Mohan Sharma was taken to the S.M.S. Hospital where he was declared dead. FIR no.133/1999 was lodged at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Police seized both the scooters. Thereafter challan and charge-sheet were filed. Claim was filed before the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after analysing the material on record allowed the claim at Rs. 6,97,000/-, which has been assailed by the claimant-appellants before this court for enhancement. 3. Counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly the deceased was a Government servant and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,116/- holding the post of Senior Technical Supervisor in the Telecom Department (BSNL), at Jaipur. Counsel also contended that : (1) since the deceased was in a higher position, he was entitled and bound to receive increments over the years ahead, and had more than eight years of employment left. Therefore, the income ought to have been assessed appropriately by the Tribunal, (2) future prospect ought to have been allowed taking into consideration the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the fact that the deceased was a Government servant having regularity of income and permanency of employment, (3) the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also wrong looking to the age of the deceased being 52 years, whereas it should have been 11 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 the amount allowed by way of consortium, and loss of love and affection is too low and that should be enhanced suitably, (5) son, namely Ajay, of the deceased is of unsound mind and his suffering was utmost because the deceased used to take proper care of him, and (6) nothing has been allowed by way of funeral expenses. In support of his contentions the counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 1428 , Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others 2013 ACJ 1403 , and Kalpanaraj & Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 2014 ACJ 1388 . 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, taking into note the fact that the accident is of the year 1999, has allowed substantial amount taking into consideration all the facts pleaded by the claimants. He further contended that in the appeal nothing has been raised insofar as the amount for future prospect and multiplier are concerned, and all these are afterthoughts, which need not be considered and deserves to be rejected by this court. He further contended that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the deceased was earning by way of his salary, an amount of Rs. 10,116/- which is not required to be enhanced at all, rather the Tribunal has taken his monthly salary at Rs. 12000/- which deserves to be reduced to his actual salary. He also contended that the order is just and proper and needs no interference. 5. Mr. Pushpendra Sharma, counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, has supported the award of the Tribunal and contended that the same is just and proper, which needs no interference. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. 7. In my view, taking note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issues which have been raised by the counsel for appellants, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal certainly deserves consideration. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. 7. In my view, taking note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issues which have been raised by the counsel for appellants, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal certainly deserves consideration. It may be that specifically the points raised now have not been taken into consideration by the claimants in the appeal preferred before this court, but certainly these technicalities are not required to be gone into, particularly in view of the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for respondent-Insurance Company is rejected, and taking into consideration the latest law, this appeal is being disposed of. 8. Admittedly, Surendra Mohan Sharma, the deceased, was a Government servant and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,116/- holding the post of Senior Technical Supervisor in the Telecom Department (BSNL), posted at Jaipur and, therefore, he had regularity of income and permanency of employment. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that in a case where there is regularity of income and permanency of employment, one is entitled to future prospect taking into consideration the earnings which may have been received by one in the later years. Accordingly, in this case future prospect is required to be allowed at the rate of 15% taking into consideration the age, admittedly 52 years, in the light of the judgment in the case of Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh (supra). However, when 15% is added to Rs. 10,116/-, it adds Rs. 1517, which totals to Rs. 11,633/- but since Tribunal has itself taken at Rs. 12,000/-, which is more than 11,633/-, the income of Rs. 12,000/- adopted is not interfered with as there is no appeal by the respondent-Insurance Company. Accordingly, loss of income is taken at Rs. 12,000/- in which future prospect is already added/considered, after ⅓rd deduction the net remains at Rs. 96,000/-. 8. 1 The multiplier, in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), at the age of 52 years, is required to be adopted at 11 instead of 7 as adopted by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 96000 x 11 = Rs. 10,56,000/- is computed as loss of income. 8. 2 In my view the amount allowed as consortium at Rs. 96000 x 11 = Rs. 10,56,000/- is computed as loss of income. 8. 2 In my view the amount allowed as consortium at Rs. 10,000/- is certainly low for the widow aged 48 years having two children one being of unsound mind. Therefore, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances to allow an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on account of consortium i.e. ( Rs. 1056000+ Rs. 40000). 8. 3 The amount allowed at Rs. 5,000/- each to the children and mother of the deceased, is also on the lower side, which in my view should be allowed at Rs. 20,000/- each. However, in the case of differently abled child the amount would be Rs. 25,000/- i.e. ( Rs. 1096000+ Rs. 65000). 8. 4 The amount of Rs. 10,000/- taking into consideration the accident being of 1999, is allowed by way of funeral expenses i.e. ( Rs. 1161000 + Rs. 10000). (a) Income (in which future prospect is already considered) 12,000/- (b) Less deduction of 1/3rd (-)4,000/- 8,000/- (c) Multiplier [ Rs. 8000 x 12 x 11] 10,56,000/- (d) Consortium to wife 40,000/- (e) Loss of love & affection to daughter 20,000/- (f) Loss of love & affection to mother 20,000/- (g) Loss of love & affection to unsound son 25,000/- (h) Funeral expenses 10,000/- [c+d+e+f+g+h] 11,71,000/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal 6,97,000/- Enhanced amount 4,74000/- 9. Accordingly, total amount of Rs. 4,74,000/- as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 10. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 12.9.2001 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,74,000/- will be paid by as directed in the award. Out of the above enhanced amount the Tribunal shall deposit in the name of dependants of the deceased in the Monthly Income Scheme with the nearest Post Office of the residence of claimant-appellants for a period of five years as indicated below:- Daughter 50,000 Son 1,00,000 Mother 1,00,000 Wife 2,00,000 4,50,000 11. The balance amount with interest would be given to the appellant-wife Smt. Indra Sharma by account payee cheque/bank draft. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid on MIS for their family maintenance, education, medical etc. etc. and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid on MIS for their family maintenance, education, medical etc. etc. and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******