JUDGMENT : Hon'ble RANKA, J.—The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 20.10.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, in Claim Case No. 318/2009. 2. The brief facts noticed are that Dhanraj, who is said to be driver on truck bearing no.RJ 20G 7786, took stones to Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) from Kota. However, a motor accident occurred on 30.1.2008 while deceased Dhanraj was riding motorcycle in Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) near Bhagwanpur pond with dumper bearing no.OR 09D 6368, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Satish Kumar Singh on wrong side of road, as a result of which Dhanraj suffered grievous and serious injuries and expired on account of the injuries. FIR No.25/2008 was registered at Police Station Kotra Road Distt. Raigarh (Chhatisgarh). Challan and charge-sheet was filed against Satish Kumar Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. Claim petition was filed by the claimants. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence and material on record, allowed claim to the extent of Rs.2,43,100/-, which is assailed herein. 3. Counsel for the appellants at the outset raised following issues for consideration of this court: (i) the income of Rs.3,500 assessed by the Tribunal is meager particularly when the deceased had gone on duty driving the truck and he was having a valid driving license of heavy motor vehicle and, therefore, his income ought to have been taken at least Rs.8000/- per month. (ii) the multiplier has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal taking into consi-deration age of the parents, when the deceased being about 24 years of age, multiplier ought to have been adopted taking into consideration age of the deceased himself in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain & Others vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 = 2015(3) RLW 2021 (SC). (iii) no amount by way of future prospects has been allowed, though the 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. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 = 2014(2) RLW 1185 (SC); Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. are also entitled for future prospects. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 = 2014(2) RLW 1185 (SC); Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors (2012) 6 SCC 421 = 2012(3) RLW 2023 (SC); Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) = 2015(1) RLW 325 (SC); G. Dhanasekar vs. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. I (2014) A.C.C. 593 (SC) = 2014(2) RLW 1461 (SC); and Syed Sadiq etc. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) = 2015(1) RLW 191 (SC), and also judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. vs. Pusha Ram & Ors. I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.), Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. vs. Kailash Chand & Ors. 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 128; Sona & Ors. vs. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013, and judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. vs. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014. (iv) the amount allowed towards loss of love and affection at Rs.2000/- each is virtually denying any amount as the parents as well as the sister of the deceased at a young age have suffered heavily on account of unfortunate death of their only young son and brother who was earning for the family, who would have helped them in later part of life, and accordingly prayed that the claim deserves to be enhanced on above issues. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that neither any evidence has been led as to the income of deceased nor any material has been produced, merely because a driving license had been obtained by the deceased, it cannot be said that he was employed as driver of a truck. He further contended that the Tribunal had no option except to take into consideration the minimum wages as income of the deceased. He further contended that in a case like the present one, where even the employment is not proved, or the deceased had no permanent source of income, question of future prospects does not arise. He further contended that the Tribunal had no option except to take into consideration the minimum wages as income of the deceased. He further contended that in a case like the present one, where even the employment is not proved, or the deceased had no permanent source of income, 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 vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009(6) SCC 121 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), and Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 = 2010(1) RLW 361 (SC), 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 vs. 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. On the point of multiplier he contended that in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shanti Pathak & Others, (2007 AIR SC 2649, and Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company, (2007) 10 SCC 643 = RLW 2007(2) SC 1384, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that multiplier has to be applied taking into consideration age of the parents when the deceased is a bachelor. He also contended that the compensation awarded on other heads is just and reasonable taking into consideration that the accident took place in the year 2008, and he supported the award of the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The undisputed facts are that the deceased met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of a dumper bearing no. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. The undisputed facts are that the deceased met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of a dumper bearing no. OR 09D 6368 by Satish Kumar Singh, and FIR was filed and thereafter challan and charge-sheet were also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. In my view, though there is no evidence about employment of the deceased of being a driver, but when proper valid license had been obtained by the deceased of heavy motor vehicle and the deceased had gone to Chhatisgarh as a truck driver, and was on duty, it would be fair and reasonable to adopt income of Rs.5000/- which cannot be said to be unreasonable for an accident which took place in the year 2008. 7. 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 judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to in para 3, are squarely applicable, and it is appropriate to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & ors. vs. 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. 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/- (-) ¼ X Rs.82,800/-) X 16)." Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015(6) SCC 347 = 2015(3) RLW 2021 (SC) (three Judges), decided on 15.5.2015, being latest on the issue, is also worth quoting :- "As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh vs. 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 prosepcts. 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."" 8. 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."" 8. Taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to in para 3 and para 7 and admittedly the deceased was a driver, 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. 9. In my view, the multiplier has to be adopted taking into consideration age of the deceased rather than taking into consideration the age of parents, in the light of latest judgment in the case Munna Lal Jain & Another (supra) which should be 18 in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), looking to the age of the deceased being 24 years. 10. In my view it would be fair and reasonable to take into consideration the amount of Rs.15000 each on account of loss of love and affection to father, mother and sister of the deceased, as against Rs.6000 in total, as awarded by the Tribunal. Funeral expenses, in my view, is also required to be enhanced to Rs.10000 as against Rs.5000 allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, in the instant case the compensation is to be reassessed as under :- i. Income : 5000 + 2500 = Rs.7500 (50% future prospects) ii. ½ deduction as personal expenses: 7500 – 3750 = Rs.3750 iii. Compensation after multiplier is applied (3750 x 12 x 18)= Rs.8,10,000 iv. Loss of Love & affection to parents and sister @15000 x 3= Rs.45,000 v. Funeral expenses & last rites = Rs.10,000 vi. Cost of litigation (as awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs.1,100 Total compensation payable = Rs.8,66,100 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs.866100 – 243100 = Rs.6,23,100/- Rounded off to Rs.6,23,000/- The interest allowed on the amount of compensation by the Tribunal, is maintained. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 12. Cost of litigation (as awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs.1,100 Total compensation payable = Rs.8,66,100 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs.866100 – 243100 = Rs.6,23,100/- Rounded off to Rs.6,23,000/- The interest allowed on the amount of compensation by the Tribunal, is maintained. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 12. The impugned award dated 20.10.2010 is modified to the extent that the claimant-appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- 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 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Nenu Lal, father of deceased Dhanraj, Rs.3 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Kalyani Devi mother of deceased Dhanraj. The interest accruing on MIS on month to month basis will be deposited in their respective savings 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. Kalyani Devi, mother of deceased Dhanraj by bank draft. 13. 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. 14. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. No costs.