JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeals are directed against the common award dated 9.5.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in Claim Case Nos. 507/2011 and 508/2011. 2. The brief facts noticed are that on 15.6.2011 at about 10:30 P.M. near Beedwali Mataji temple in Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Ajmer, a Trailer bearing No. RJ01 GA 2810, being driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1 Ganni Khan, hit Gopal Singh and Shaitan Singh, who were on a motorcycle. It is alleged that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Trailer, the accident took place consequent thereto both, Gopal Singh and Shaitan Singh died. Challan was also filed and two claims petitions were filed by the dependents of the deceased persons. 3. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record and evidence led, allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 7,24,000/- in the case of deceased Gopal Singh, and to the extent of Rs. 6,72,000/- in the case of deceased Shaitan Singh, which are assailed herein. 4. Counsel for the appellants raised four points, namely (i) income of both the deceased were claimed at Rs. 8,000/- per month as they were young, hale and hearty, having valid driving license and deceased Gopal Singh was employed as river of Trolla and deceased Shaitan Singh was employed as driver of Tractor, and their employers have appeared in the witness-box to affirm about Rs. 8,000/- each being paid to them and the Tribunal has taken into consideration their income only at Rs. 4,000/- each, which is required to be enhanced. He also contends that even the minimum wage was Rs. 155/- per day in the year 2011 when the accident is said to have occurred, (ii) Since both the deceased were regularly employed as drivers of respective vehicles with regularity of income, in the light of several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, both the deceased being below the age of 40 years, 50% future prospects were required to be allowed while computing compensation. He contended that Hon'ble the 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 by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. He contended that Hon'ble the 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 by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013(9) SCC 54 ; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 667 : 2012(6) SCC 421 ; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways 2014(1) WLC (SC) Civil 333 : 2014(1) TAC 711 (SC) ; G. Dhanasekar v. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. 2014(1) WLC (SC) Civil 495 : 2014(1) A.C.C. 593 (SC) ; and 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(1) 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 also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014 . (iii) He further contends that the multiplier ought to have been taken into consideration according to the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. (iv) He also contends that the amount allowed on account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and funeral expenses have either not been allowed and if allowed, are too nominal for the family members who have suffered heavily on account of the untimely demise of both the persons at a very young and tender age. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the evidence led go against the claim of appellants inasmuch as their employment as drivers has not been proved, though their employers have appeared before the witness-box but they have not kept any record of payments as drivers of Trolla and Tractor respectively, and also no evidence of payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the deceased by them. Neither any receipt or certificate nor any record of income and expenses has been produced by the employers, and they have merely been planted to support the claim of claimants. 8,000/- per month to the deceased by them. Neither any receipt or certificate nor any record of income and expenses has been produced by the employers, and they have merely been planted to support the claim of claimants. He further contends that when in there no permanency or regularity 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 & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another 2009(2) WLC (SC) Civil 323 : 2009(6) SCC 121 , and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013(1) WLC (SC) Civil 740 : 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(1) WLC (SC) Civil 669 : 2015 ACJ 1239 , has noticed that in there 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 at all. He further contends that insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has applied the same in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and when the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, that will prevail. He further contends that the order amounts allowed on account of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection etc., are not required to be interfered with as the same have already been reasonably allowed by the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, and have perused the other material placed at the time of hearing. 7. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, and have perused the other material placed at the time of hearing. 7. Admittedly, two persons have died on account of the unfortunate accident on 15.6.2011, both were young, one is said to be of 23 years and the other of 30 years. Though in both the cases driving license has been placed on record, and it is claimed that they were employed as drivers of respective vehicles, and even the employers have come into the witness-box, however, the Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the employers, particularly in view of the fact that the employers did not maintain/produce any record of expenses what to say of income, and the other discrepancies noticed by the Tribunal about other evidence placed by the claimants. The claimants have, however, claimed that the deceased were illiterate persons and the claimants are also equally illiterate villagers and if the employers did not produce any valid or credible evidence, whey the claimants should suffer when their specific claim was that the deceased were employed as drivers with respective employers and were earning Rs. 8000/- per month. 8. Taking into consideration the over-all facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the incident is of the year 2011, and both the deceased were having valid license to drive respective vehicles, were young, hale and hearty, in my view it would be appropriate to take into consideration with their age, and both deceased were maintaining large families, at least their income may be taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, income is directed to be taken at Rs. 5,000/- and the claim would be computed accordingly. 9. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even a Driver, Vegetable-vendor, Barber or similarly situated self employed persons, future prospects are required to be considered and, therefore, the judgments which have been referred to herein above in para 4 are applicable. It would also be appropriate to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & ors. It would also be appropriate to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & ors. 2015(2) WLC (SC) Civil 182 : 2015 Law Suit (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(2) WLC (SC) Civil 38 : 2015(6) SCC 347 (three Judges), decided on 15.5.2015 , being latest on the issue are 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." 10. 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." 10. Taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, even a Driver, a person who was hale and hearty, had a long life to go ahead, would be entitled to future prospects and accordingly, since the age of the deceased was less than 40 years in both the cases, the future prospects of 50% to their income is to be allowed. 11. In my view, the multiplier is not required to be interfered with, particularly when the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), and this court has reiterated that once the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) has laid down a principal about multiplier in a tabulated form, which shall prevail, and I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal insofar as the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is concerned. The deduction of personal expenses has also been found to be proper. 12. Insofar as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are concerned, in my view the amount allowed by the Tribunal appears to be low and it would be appropriate to allow Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wives respectively, and Rs. 15,000/- each to the minor children, to the parents and brother and sister for loss of love and affection. The amount allowed by the Tribunal as funeral expenses is also raised to Rs. 10,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The claim is reassessed as under: Claimants in CMA 3389/2012 (i) Income : 5000 + 2500 = Rs. 7500 (50% future prospects (ii) 1/4th deduction as personal expenses : 7500 - 1875 = Rs. 5625 (iii) Compensation after multiplier is applied (5625 X 12 X 18) = Rs. 1215000 (iv) Loss of consortium to wife) = Rs. 0025000 (v) Loss of Love & affection to minor children @ 15000 X 4 = Rs. 0060000 (vi) Loss of Love & affection to parents @ 15000 X 2 = Rs. 0030000 (vii) Funeral expenses & last rites = Rs. 0010000 (viii) Transportation charges (as allowed by the Tribunal) = Rs. 1215000 (iv) Loss of consortium to wife) = Rs. 0025000 (v) Loss of Love & affection to minor children @ 15000 X 4 = Rs. 0060000 (vi) Loss of Love & affection to parents @ 15000 X 2 = Rs. 0030000 (vii) Funeral expenses & last rites = Rs. 0010000 (viii) Transportation charges (as allowed by the Tribunal) = Rs. 0001000 Total compensation payable = Rs. 1341000 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs. 1341000 - 724000 = Rs. 617000/-. Claimants in CMA 3390/2012 (i) Income : 5000 + 2500 = Rs. 7500 (50% future prospects) (ii) 1/4th deduction as personal expenses : 7500 - 1857 = Rs. 5625 (iii) Compensation after multiplier is applied (5625 X 12 X 16) = Rs. 1080000 (iv) Loss of consortium to wife = Rs. 0025000 (v) Loss of Love & affection to minor children @ 15000 X 3 = Rs. 0045000 (vi) Loss of Love & affection to parents @ 15000 x 2 = Rs. 0030000 (vii) Loss of Love & affection to brothers & sister @ 15000 X 3 = Rs. 0045000 (vii) Funeral expenses & last rites = Rs. 0010000 (ix) Transportation charges (as awarded by the Tribunal) = Rs. 0001000 Total compensation payable = Rs. 1236000 Therefore, the amount enhanced is Rs. 1236000 - 672000 = Rs. 564000/-. The interest allowed on the amount of compensation by the Tribunal, is maintained in both the appeals. 14. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. 15. The impugned award dated 9.5.2012 is modified to the extent that: Claimants in CMA 3389/2012 The claimant-appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 6,17,000/- 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. 4 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Anita, wife of deceased Gopal Singh, Rs. 1 lack along with interest in the name of claimant Sitaram, fat her of deceased Gopal Singh, Rs. 1 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of deceased Gopal Singh. 4 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Anita, wife of deceased Gopal Singh, Rs. 1 lack along with interest in the name of claimant Sitaram, fat her of deceased Gopal Singh, Rs. 1 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of deceased Gopal Singh. 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 the wife of deceased Gopal Singy by bank draft.Claimants in CMA 3390/2012The claimant-appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 5,64,000/- 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. Kalli, wife of deceased Shaitan Singh, Rs. 1 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Sardar Singh, father of deceased Shaitan Singh, Rs. 1 lac along with interest in the name of claimant Smt. Naurti Devi, mother of deceased Shaitan Singh. 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 the wife of deceased Shaitan Singh by bank draft. 16. 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. 17. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No cost.Appeal Disposed of by Enhancement of Awards as above. *******