JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 21.2.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Beawar, in Claim Case No. 2/2009. 2. The brief facts noticed are that on 23.10.2008 one Narendra Singh, who is claimed to be a Teacher in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan, was coming to his home from Bhim on his motorcycle bearing no.RJ06 SE 0534, when he reached near Kukarkheda on the highway, a truck bearing no. HR38 J 6207, coming from behind in a high speed which was being driven by Ved Prakash, respondent no.1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of Narendra Singh while trying to overtake him, as a result of which Narendra Singh received severe and grievous injuries to which he succumbed at the spot. Claim to the extent of Rs. 1,18,55,000/- was filed. Prior to the filing of the claim petition, FIR was lodged and charge-sheet was filed against the driver of offending vehicle Ved Prakash, and the Tribunal after analysing the material and evidence on record, 2 allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 31,72,564/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the accident and other factors particularly in view of the fact that the vehicle was duly insured and all material facts and finding of fact has been found noticed by the Tribunal, however, he assailed the amount allowed at Rs. 31,72,564/- to be highly excessive and unjust and raised that (1) the income was not properly taken into consideration inasmuch as his gross salary was taken into consideration when several deductions were there and only net salary ought to have been taken into consideration, (2) the future prospects taken into consideration by the Tribunal at 30% over the gross salary, is also not in accordance with the provisions of law and ought not to have been taken into consideration, (3) the income tax reduced by the Tribunal at Rs. 16000/- is on estimate basis and as per exact working, the income tax liability calculates at Rs. 18,700/- based on the actual income tax calculation as per the Income Tax Act, and is required to be reduced by Rs. 16000/- is on estimate basis and as per exact working, the income tax liability calculates at Rs. 18,700/- based on the actual income tax calculation as per the Income Tax Act, and is required to be reduced by Rs. 18,700/-, (4) it was admitted that the age of the deceased was around 47 years and multiplier ought to have been 13, whereas the age of deceased has been adopted, without any basis, merely on the basis of the post-mortem report at 45, and multiplier of 14 has been applied which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , (5) the other amounts allowed on account of loss of love and affection and other conventional heads, is also excessive and deserves to be reduced 3 suitably. 4. Elaborating the points, he contended that there is no question of taking into consideration the gross income as the base, as only net salary which was being carried at home ought to have been taken into consideration. With reference to future prospects, counsel for the Insurance Company 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, and also argued that the points raised hereinbefore needs consideration and the claim deserves to be reduced accordingly. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claim allowed is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with, and contended that all factors have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal taking into consideration the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thus the claim allowed is reasonable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claim allowed is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with, and contended that all factors have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal taking into consideration the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thus the claim allowed is reasonable. Rather 4 he contended that the claimants had grievance of the amount allowed on conventional heads to be substantially low which ought to have been enhanced. He further contended that there are several judgments of the Apex Court on the proposition that even a Driver, Vegetable vendor, a Barber or self employed persons or similarly situated persons, are entitled for future prospects whereas the present case is of a Govt. Teacher well set and had a permanent employment, and relied 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) 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) ; 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. I (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 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 5 impugned award, and in my view the Tribunal has taken into consideration all necessary factors and has elaborately dealt with the issues raised in the claim petition, and admittedly Narendra Singh, the deceased, who was aged about 47 years, a qualified Govt. Teacher, had died an unfortunate death on 23.10.2008 on account of rash and negligent driving by one Ved Prakash, and the Tribunal taking into consideration the FIR, charge-sheet and other statements, has allowed the claim. 7. Teacher, had died an unfortunate death on 23.10.2008 on account of rash and negligent driving by one Ved Prakash, and the Tribunal taking into consideration the FIR, charge-sheet and other statements, has allowed the claim. 7. Insofar as the income is concerned, though it was claimed in the claim petition that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 22,000/- per month. However, it was noticed by the Tribunal that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 20,242/- and that is what has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, and which in my view is just and proper as the salary includes D.A. and other emoluments which were being received by the deceased at the time when the accident happened. 8. Admittedly, as mentioned earlier, the deceased was a Govt. Teacher, and well settled in life with permanency and regularity of income, therefore, future prospects is certainly required to be allowed. It may be observed that even the Hon'ble Apex Court in some of the judgments supra, has held that even a Driver, Vegetable-vendor, Barber or similarly situated self employed persons are entitled for future prospects when at-least in the instant case the deceased was a Govt. 6 Teacher having permanency and stability and, therefore, not only the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Others (supra) is squarely applicable but also the other judgments which have been referred to herein above in para 5. 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 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 ¼th 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. 6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs. 82,800/- per annum. Deducting ¼th 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), 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 7 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, the claim of future prospects has correctly been considered by the learned Tribunal and I am in full agreement with the counsel for the respondents in this regard, and accordingly in my view, the future prospects taking into consideration the deceased being in the age bracket of 40-50, has correctly been allowed by 30%. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has, as referred earlier, provided an exact calculation of the income tax liability at Rs. 18,700/- to which the learned counsel for respondent-claimants was unable to contradict. Accordingly, income tax would be reduced by Rs. 18,700/- as against Rs. 16000/-, reduced by the Tribunal. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has, as referred earlier, provided an exact calculation of the income tax liability at Rs. 18,700/- to which the learned counsel for respondent-claimants was unable to contradict. Accordingly, income tax would be reduced by Rs. 18,700/- as against Rs. 16000/-, reduced by the Tribunal. 11. In my view the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the age of the deceased at 45 years merely on the basis of post-mortem report but admittedly his age in all Government records was found noticed to be of 47 years, therefore, the multiplier in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), is required to be adopted at 13 instead of 14 and accordingly the claim will be reduced by applying the multiplier of 13 as against 14. 12. The other amounts allowed by the Tribunal on account of loss of consortium at Rs. 10,000/- to the wife, and funeral expenses of Rs. 5000/-, in my view is just and proper and is not excessive. 13. In view of what has been observed herein above, the claim of the appellant insofar as : (i) multiplier is concerned, is directed to be reduced to 13 as against 14, (ii) the income tax liability is required to be reduced by Rs. 18,700/- as against Rs. 16000/-. The other part of award of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. The Tribunal shall recompute the claim by adopting multiplier of 13, and reducing the tax liability by Rs. 2,700/- (18,700 - 16000), and accordingly disburse the amount to the claimant-respondents in the same proportion as has been directed in the impugned award, within a period of two months. Amount if any to be disbursed, would be by bank draft only. 14. The appeal is partly allowed. *******