JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 25.2.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, Ajmer, in MAC Case No. 153/2011. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 14.7.2011 one Ram Prasad, who happened to be standing near the Power House on Ajmer road, Kekri, was hit by a vehicle - Crane, bearing Temporary No. RJ 14SC Tem. 4721, which was being driven in a high speed in a rash and by negligent manner by Satya Narayan coming from wrong side, consequent thereto it is claimed that he received grievous and serious injuries and expired on the spot. FIR No.279/2011 was lodged under section 279, 304A IPC and challan was also filed before the competent court against Satya Narayan, the driver of the vehicle - Crane. It is claimed that the deceased was a hale and hearty person, aged about 37 years and was running a halwai shop near Kekri Bus Stand, and was earning amount of Rs. 15000/- per month, and in addition to earning as halwai he was also doing the work of labourer. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the facts noticed and evidence led, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 6,25,000/-, which is assailed herein primarily on the view that the claim allowed is low and needs enhancement. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants raised : (i) That the income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 4000/- is virtually nothing as the deceased was aged about 37 years, quite hale and hearty and was the sole bread earner of a family with 4 minor children as well as mother and wife and was leading a good life, and after the death of deceased, the family members have suffered badly. (ii) future prospects even in a case of halwai or otherwise or a self employed person, is required to be allowed, he contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, driver etc. are also entitled for future prospects. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. are also entitled for future prospects. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 421 ; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC); G. Dhanasekar v. M. D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. I(2014) ACC 593 (SC); and Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company(2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC), and also on judgments rendered by this Court in R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors. 1 (2014) ACC 37(Raj.), Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 128; Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013, and Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (CMA No.3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014. (iii) He further contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection at Rs. 10,000/- per child and to mother and wife totalling Rs. 60,000/- is virtually nothing and is required to be enhanced. (iv) He also contended that the amount allowed on other heads also require to be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that no evidence was led about running of a halwai shop what to talk of his income of Rs. 15000/-, which is said to be earned per month by the deceased. On the contrary he contended that the evidence is that he was running a thela and at the relevant time was carrying some iron scrap, and no evidence has been led even of any earning, though Tribunal had taken into consideration the minimum wages. With reference to future prospects he further contended that when even income is disputed or not proved, question of future prospects does not arise. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121 , and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 , to contend that if the deceased had no permanency of income or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, no future prospect is required to be considered. v. Madan Mohan Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 , to contend that if the deceased had no permanency of income or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, no future prospect is required to be considered. He further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Others v. Gangalakshmamma 2015 ACJ 1239 , has noticed that there is divergence of opinion amongst various Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court and vide judgment dated 13.3.2015 referred the matter in the case of self-employed or fixed wages for placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders towards constitution of a suitable Larger Bench to decide the issue. He thus contended that several judgments are there where in the case like this, the persons who are self-employed but without permanency of income or regularity of income, future prospect is not required to be allowed. He further contended that the other amounts allowed is quite fair and reasonable and is not required to be enhanced, taking into consideration the fact that the incident is of the year 2011 and he supported award of the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and in my view taking into consideration the facts on record and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, though admittedly the claimants have not been able to prove that the deceased was running a shop of halwai, however, taking into consideration the fact that he was found at least running a thela, as claimed by the counsel for the respondents and even for a person who is running a thela in my view can certainly claim to be earning an income of at least Rs. 150 to Rs. 175/-, and in my view it would be fair and reasonable to take income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month particularly in view of the fact that the deceased was having four minor children, mother and wife to maintain and must be putting a lot of energy and labour. Accordingly, the income is required to be taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 6. In my view the future prospects even in a case of a person as in the instant case, is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the income is required to be taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 6. In my view the future prospects even in a case of a person as in the instant case, is required to be allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even a Driver, Vegetable-vendor, Barber or similarly situated self employed persons, future prospects is required to be considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to in para 3, are squarely applicable, and it is appropriate to refer and to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & ors. v. Maharaj Singh & ors. 2015 LawSuit (SC) 299, decided on 27.3.2015, a case of a technician in a hospital, which reads thus:- "On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma, 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs. 6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs. 82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of his death as per Sarla Verma, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,93,600/- [(Rs.82,800/- (-) 1/4 X Rs. 82,800/-) X 16]." Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015 (6) SCC 347 (three Judges), decided on 15.5.2015 (latest on point of time) is also worth quoting:- "As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh V. Rajbir Singh, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in the case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. To quote: (SCC p.61, para 8) "8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."" 7. Taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to in para 3 and para 6 and admittedly the deceased was running a thela, was hale and hearty, had a long life to go ahead, would be entitled to future prospects and accordingly, since age of the deceased was less than 40 years, future prospects of 50% is required to be allowed. Accordingly, future prospects of 50% is directed to be allowed. 8. In my view the amount allowed by the Tribunal on account of loss of love and affection for the minor children as well as mother and wife, is also low. It would be appropriate to allow Rs. 25000 towards loss of consortium to the wife, and an amount of Rs. 20000 on account of loss of love and affection to the mother, and Rs. 15000 each for the four minor children. Accordingly, in the instant case the compensation has to be reassessed as under:- i. Income: Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 2,500 = Rs. 7,500 (50% future prospects) ii. 1/4th deduction as personal expenses: Rs. 7,500 - Rs. 1,875 = Rs. 5,625 iii. Compensation after multiplier is applied ( Rs. 5,625 x 12 x 15) = Rs. 10,12,500 iv. Loss of consortium to wife = Rs. 25,000 v. Loss of Love & affection to mother = Rs. 20,000 vi. Loss of Love & affection to minor children @ Rs. 15000 x 4 = Rs. 60,000 vii. Funeral expenses & last rites (as awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs. 25,000 Total compensation payable = Rs. 11,42,500 or say = Rs. 11,43,000 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs. 5,18,000/- (1143000 - 625000). The interest allowed on the amount of compensation by the Tribunal, is maintained. The claimant-appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date as directed by the Tribunal. 25,000 Total compensation payable = Rs. 11,42,500 or say = Rs. 11,43,000 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs. 5,18,000/- (1143000 - 625000). The interest allowed on the amount of compensation by the Tribunal, is maintained. The claimant-appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of the nearest Post Office to the residence of the claimants for a period of five years, as indicated below:-Rs.3.5 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Ghisi, wife of deceased Ram Prasad,Rs.1.5 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Sarju, mother of deceased Ram Prasad,The interest accruing on MIS on month to month basis will be deposited in their respective savings bank account with the same Post Office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/quarterly interest as per the scheme of Post Office. The balance amount along with interest be handed over to Smt. Ghisi, wife of deceased Ram Prasad by bank draft. 9. The above exercise is to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid on the entire enhanced amount so deposited in MIS, and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. 10. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******