JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 15/01/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in Claim Case No.155/2011 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case noticed are that on 04/01/2011 at about 4.30-5.00 p.m. one Mohan Singh and Pappi were coming to Alwar from Rewari on Motor Cycle bearing No. RJ-02-10M-7619 and the brother of deceased, namely Narendra Singh and Rajesh were on another Motor Cycle, when they reached near Jajor Bas and Kithoor, a Jeep (Bolero) bearing No. RJ-32UA-1975 being driven on wrong side in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 Aasamdeen, hit the Motor Cycle of Mohan Singh, on account of which Mohan Singh died on the spot and Pappi sustained severe and grievous injuries. FIR No.10/11 was registered at the Police Station Sadar, Alwar and after investigation the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1-driver. Claim to the extent of Rs. 1,65,20,000/- was filed by the claimant-appellants. After analysing the material available on record and evidence led, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,90,000/- to the claimants, which is assailed herein. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant limited his arguments to the effect that: (i) the deceased Mohan Singh was aged about 30 years, hail and hearty and had long life to live, he was running a sweet shop by the name of Ratan Misthan Bhandar and was earning an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month and was also income tax payer furnishing income tax returns which was placed on record by the claimants-appellants whereas the Tribunal, discarding everything, has taken into consideration the income of Rs. 60,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per month only which is meager; (ii) Admittedly, the deceased was running a sweet shop (restaurant) and had stable income, an income tax payer and therefore, was certainly entitled for future prospect. In so far as the future prospect, he 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, are entitled for future prospects and relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. In so far as the future prospect, he 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, are entitled for future prospects and relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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) 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 , judgment in the case of Jagdish & Ors. 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 allowed future prospect. 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 where also claim was allowed and thus contended to allow future prospects, (iii) the amount allowed on other conventional heads is low and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has reasonably taken into consideration the income of Rs. 60,000/- per annum which is not required to be enhanced any more as no evidence was led about earning income of Rs. 15,000/- per month rather the Tribunal has found as a finding of fact that the Income tax return was filed a day earlier of the accident and was filed to inflate the claim which has rightly been discarded by the Tribunal itself. 15,000/- per month rather the Tribunal has found as a finding of fact that the Income tax return was filed a day earlier of the accident and was filed to inflate the claim which has rightly been discarded by the Tribunal itself. He accordingly prayed that the income, as assessed by the Tribunal, is correct. In so far as the future prospect is concerned, she contended that no such amount is required to be allowed/enhanced, particularly in view of the fact that except oral claim that the deceased was running a sweet shop by the name of Ratan Misthan Bhandar, no other evidence was led about any license/certificate from any other authority about the actual running of the so-called Ratan Misthan Bhandar and contended that there being no permanent nature of income, the claim is not required to be allowed and relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.: (2009) 6 SCC 121 : Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. : (2013) 9 SCC 65 & Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma: 2015 ACJ 1239 where even the matter has been referred before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench. She further contended that the other amount allowed is more than reasonable and is not required to be enhanced any further. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order and it is an undisputed fact that the accident took place on the fateful day of 04/01/2011 when the deceased was on his own motorcycle along with one Pappi when a Jeep came from the wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle and consequent thereto, not only Mohan Singh died but Pappi also got seriously injured and the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim against the respondents. 6. Though, it was claimed that the deceased was an income tax payer and was furnishing his return of income and claiming that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but the fact noticed and not disputed by counsel for the appellant is that the return of Income tax was filed on 03/01/2011 i.e. a day earlier of the fateful day of accident and therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 15,000/- per month but the fact noticed and not disputed by counsel for the appellant is that the return of Income tax was filed on 03/01/2011 i.e. a day earlier of the fateful day of accident and therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, taking into consideration that the deceased was running a sweet shop by the name of Ratan Misthan Bhandar in Alwar in a very prominent place and not disputed by the Respondent, in my view, it would be reasonable to take income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- per month as against Rs. 5,000/- taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the income will be taken at Rs. 66,000/- per annum as against Rs. 60,000/- per annum. 7. In my view, future prospects is required to be allowed taking into consideration judgments observed in para 3 hereinbefore which are squarely applicable and I have also taken 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. 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]." 7. 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). 8. 9,93,600/- [(Rs.82,800/- (-) 1/4 X Rs. 82,800/-) X 16]." 7. 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). 8. It may also be observed that in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (three Judges), which is latest on point of time, (decided on 15/05/2015), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "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." 9. Therefore, taking into consideration the above judgments noticed in para 3, in my view, self employed persons earning wages or even small time employees/workers like driver, vegetable vendor, barber etc. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." 9. Therefore, taking into consideration the above judgments noticed in para 3, 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 prospects 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 since in the instant case, the deceased was running a regular sweet shop (Ratan Misthan Bhandar), I have no hesitation in holding that the claimants are entitled to future prospect and admittedly, the age of the deceased was about 30 years, in the light of the judgments (supra), he falls within the bracket of below 40 years of age and accordingly would be entitled to enhancement of 50% as future prospects. 10. In my view, the other amount allowed by the Tribunal under the heads of funeral expenses at Rs. 25,000/-; loss of consortium at Rs. 1 lac and loss of love and affection at Rs. 1 lac is quite reasonable and in my view, is not required to be enhanced. 11. In view of the above, the compensation is recomputed as under:- (A) Income Rs. 5,500/- P.M. (B) Future Prospectus 50% Rs. 2,750/- P.M. A+B Rs. 8,250/- P.M. (C) Less-Deduction of Personal expenses 1/4nd of total income Rs. 2,062/- P.M. A+B-C Rs. 6,188/- P.M. (D) Multiplier 6,188 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,62,352/- (E) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- (F) Loss of love and affection for children Rs. 1,00,000/- (F) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 14,87,352/- Less-Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 9,90,000/- Amount enhanced Rs. 4,97,352/- or say Rs. 4, 97,000/- 12. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 4,97,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 15/01/2014 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,97,000/- 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. 4,97,000/- 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. 3,00,000/- in the name of appellant No.1-Smt. Pinky, wife of the deceased and Rs. 1,75,000/- in the name of appellant No.5-Smt. Lalta Devi, mother of the deceased 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 Bank 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 Smt. Pinky wife of the deceased by the Tribunal by bank draft/bankers cheque. It is made clear that the recipients 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 partly allowed. *******