JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri (Ajmer) vide award dated 16/07/2009 passed in MAC Case No.119/2008 by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded. 2. Brief facts noticed are that on 30/06/2008 while the deceased-Pappu was going on his motorcycle from Malpura to Junia, at about 4.30 pm, one Jeep bearing No. RJ-14-U-0867, which was coming from Kekri and whose driver was driving it in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle from the wrong side consequent thereto, Pappu sustained severe and grievous injuries and was taken to hospital at Malpura and thereafter was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur but unfortunately he expired on 01/07/2008. An FIR to this effect came to be lodged at the concerned police station where the police after investigation filed charge sheet. The claimants appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material and evidence on record, allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- which according to the claimants-appellants is on lower side and hence, instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant limited his arguments to the effect that (i) the income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month is without taking into consideration the material placed on record about earning of income at Rs. 8,000/- per month from Bhag Chand Construction Company where it is claimed that the deceased Pappu was working as a driver of JCB Machine and ample evidence was led in this regard and the deceased was also having valid driving license; (ii) there is no consideration of future prospect by the Tribunal which ought to have been allowed.; (iii) it is an admitted fact that the deceased was a bachelor and as such, multiplier ought to have been applied taking into consideration the age of deceased but the Tribunal has applied multiplier taking into consideration the age of the parents which is not proper in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munnal Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 347 and (iv) the total amount allowed at Rs. v. Vipin Kumar & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 347 and (iv) the total amount allowed at Rs. 30,000/- on all other heads namely; loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. is quite low and deserves to be enhanced. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claim is just and proper and the award of the Tribunal requires no interference as the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the facts and necessary material. He contended that the certificate issued by Bhag Chand Construction Company is not reliable as it was issued by brother of the deceased who happens to be running the Construction Company and such certificate is not credible at all and no other evidence has been led about earning of income of Rs. 8,000/- . He further contended that even when the income has not been proved and in absence of permanency of employment, the question of future prospect does not arise. He further contended that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak & Ors., (2007) AIR SC 2649 & Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , the multiplier has correctly been applied taking into consideration the age of the parents as admittedly the deceased was bachelor. On other heads, taking into consideration the incident of the year 2008, the amount allowed at Rs. 30,000/- is quite reasonable and needs no enhancement. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and in my view, the accident and all other factors have been admitted by the respondents, as referred to herein above, which needs no elaborate discussion and only the question of enhancement of the claim raised by counsel for the appellant is required to be considered. 6. In my view, though the certificate of Bhag Chand Construction Company has been submitted which has been discarded by the Tribunal for the reason that the said Company was being run by the real brother of the deceased and may have been issued being an interested party to support the version of income of Rs. 6. In my view, though the certificate of Bhag Chand Construction Company has been submitted which has been discarded by the Tribunal for the reason that the said Company was being run by the real brother of the deceased and may have been issued being an interested party to support the version of income of Rs. 8,000/- per month and therefore, in my view, the certificate has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal, however, taking into consideration the fact that some material has been placed on record about the deceased at least working in the Construction Company and having a valid driving license, in my view, it would be appropriate to take income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 4,500/- per month which can reasonably be assumed for a person, who is aged about 22 years, hail and hearty. Accordingly, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month would be adopted. 7. For future prospect counsel for the claimants appellants elaborated and contended that there are several authorities on the proposition that even a driver, vegetable vendor, barber, self-employed persons or similarly situated person, is entitled for future prospect and relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & 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) A.C.C. 593 (SC) ; Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) and also judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors., (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 the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagdish. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008), decided on 4th March, 2014 and further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors., 2015 Law Suit (SC) 299 , which is a case of a technician in a hospital has been considered. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008), decided on 4th March, 2014 and further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors., 2015 Law Suit (SC) 299 , which is a case of a technician in a hospital has been considered. He also relied on judgment 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), a case where the deceased was a Pandit and thus contended to allow future prospect. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (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 furture prospect is required to be considered in such cases. He further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma, 2015 ACJ 1239 , has noticed that there is difference of opinion amongst various Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court and vide judgment dated 13/03/2015, referred the matter, in the case of self-employed or persons earning 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 judgements 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. 9. Taking into consideration the various judgments, though for and against, as noticed herein above and particularly taking into consideration the latest judgment in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors. (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "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. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors. (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "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]." 9. 1 It may be observed that this judgment is dated 27/03/2015 i.e. later than the judgment rendered in the case of Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma (supra). 10. It may also be observed that in yet another latest judgment of 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), which is again latest on point of time, decided on 15/05/2015, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "As far as furture 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." 11. 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." 11. Therefore, in my view, self employed persons earning wages or even small time employees/workers like driver, vegetable vendor, barber etc. are also required to be extended the benefit of future prospect according to the bracket of ages i.e. below 40 years:50%; from 40 to 50 years: 30%, I am inclined to agree with the contention of counsel for the claimants-appellants and accordingly, in the instant case, the future prospect will be enhanced by 50% as the deceased was aged about 22 years only. 12. In my view, it would be fair and reasonable to allow Rs. 15,000/- each to mother and father for the loss of love and affection for the unfortunate death of their young son and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is deemed reasonable towards funeral expenses. 13. In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:- (A) Income Rs. 4,500/- PM (B) Future Prospectus 50% Rs. 2,250/- PM A+B Rs. 6,750/- PM (C) Less-Deduction of Personal expenses 1/2nd of total income Rs. 3,375/- PM A+B-C Rs. 3,375/- PM (D) Multiplier 3,375 x 12 x 18= Rs. 7,29,000/- (E) Loss of love and affection for father and mother @ Rs. 15,000/- each Rs. 30,000/- (F) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 7,69,000/- Less-Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 3,00,000/- Amount enhanced Rs. 4,69,600/- or say Rs. 4,70,000/- 14. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 4,70,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 16/07/2009 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/- with interest @ 6% to be allowed from the date of filing of claim petition will be paid by the non-petitioners. Out of the above enhanced amount with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands, the Tribunal shall deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- & Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of appellant No.1-Maniram, father of the deceased and appellant No.2-Smt. Meera, mother of the deceased respectively in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. 2,00,000/- & Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of appellant No.1-Maniram, father of the deceased and appellant No.2-Smt. Meera, mother of the deceased respectively in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest post office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will be deposited in the saving account with the same post office with permission to withdraw the monthly interest/ quarterly interest as per the scheme of the post office. The remaining balance amount with interest would be disbursed to mother of the deceased by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. It is made clear that parents of the deceased will be allowed interest only as aforesaid of the enhanced amount so deposited in MIS and will not be allowed to take a loan on the same from the post office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise to be done within two months. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******