JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Ankleshwar (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") passed in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No.1709 of 2013 (New) (Old No.500 of 2013), by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has directed the appellant herein original opponent no.3 Insurance Company to pay to the original claimants a sum of Rs.29,87,852/- (after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence of the deceased) towards compensation under the different head for the death of deceased Sanjay Tribhovandas Modi with 9% interest therein from the date of application till realization, the appellant herein - original opponent no.3 - Insurance Company of the Motor Truck involved in the accident has preferred the present First Appeal. 1.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have also preferred Cross Objection No. 18 of 2015 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.0. In a vehicular accident which took place on 09.06.2013 at about 10.p.m between the Motor Truck bearing registration no. GJ-3-L2658 at the relevant time, which was driven by the original opponent no.1 and the motorbike driven by the deceased Sanjay Modi, deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot of the accident. That the original claimants, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sanjay Modi filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.30 lacs towards compensation under the different heads for the death of deceased Sanjay Modi from the all the original opponents. 2.1. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased Sanjay Modi was standing with his motorbike beside of the road near Netrang Chokdi and it was rainy day. On about 10 p.m in the night at the relevant point of time, original opponent no.1 Driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident came, driving his motor truck in rash and negligent manner, he lost his control over the steering and dashed with the motorbike and as a result, deceased sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot of the accident. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that original opponent no.1 driver of the motor truck involved in the accident was sole negligent for the accident, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and thereafter died on the spot. 2.2. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 38 years and was doing the business in the name and style of "Sanjay Footwear" on the Netrang Cross Road. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that deceased Sanjay Modi had developed the business and earned goodwill of the business and was earning handsome income from the footwear business. Therefore, original claimants claimed total sum of Rs.30 lacs towards compensation for the death of Sanjay Modi. 2.3. The claim petition was opposed by original opponent nos. 1 and 2 by filing written statement at Exh.15. They denied the factum of the accident. They also denied the date and time of accident and also denied the involvement of the vehicle. The original opponents no. 1 and 2 denied that the original opponent no.1 driver of the motor truck was negligent. The original opponent nos. 1 and 2 also denied that the deceased Sanjay Modi was standing besides of the road at the time of accident. They also denied the age and income of the deceased as alleged by the claimants. It was the case on behalf of the original opponent nos. 1 and 2 that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the motorbike by deceased Sanjay Modi and therefore, the opponents are not liable to pay compensation to the appellant. 2.4. The claim petition was also opposed by the original opponent no.3 by filing written statement at Exh.18 denying the factum of the accident, age and income of deceased etc. The Insurance Company also denied the fact that the deceased Sanjay Modi died on account of the accidental injury. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the claim petition. 2.5. That the learned trial Court framed the issues at Exh.19. 2.6. That the appellant Insurance Company - original opponent no.3 submitted the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Exh.20 and the said application came to be allowed and Insurance Company was permitted to defend the claim petition on all the grounds. 2.7. 2.5. That the learned trial Court framed the issues at Exh.19. 2.6. That the appellant Insurance Company - original opponent no.3 submitted the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Exh.20 and the said application came to be allowed and Insurance Company was permitted to defend the claim petition on all the grounds. 2.7. That the original claimants led the evidences both oral as well as documentary. That the original claimant no.1 Manishaben wd/o Sanjay came to be examined to prove income of the deceased as well as negligence on the part of the original opponent no.1 Driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident. However, she was not an eyewitness to the accident, the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered the deposition of the original claimant no.1 - widow for the purpose of negligence. That the original claimants produced the copy of the complaint /FIR at Exh.22; panchnama of place of accident at Exh.34. The original opponent no.1 - Driver of the motor truck involved in the accident stepped in the witness box and he explained the manner in which the accident took place. He was thoroughly cross examined. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased Sanjay Modi was standing besides of the road and motor truck was coming from the opposite direction. On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, considering the panchnama of the place of accident, the learned Tribunal has found that the accident took place in the middle of the Netrang Cross Road. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the deceased Sanjay Modi contributory negligent of the accident to the extent of 15% and original opponent no.1 - Driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 85%. 2.8. To prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident and prospective income at Rs.25,800/- per month, the original claimants produced the income tax returns for the AY 201112, 2012,13 and 201314 at Exhs. 31 to 33. 2.8. To prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident and prospective income at Rs.25,800/- per month, the original claimants produced the income tax returns for the AY 201112, 2012,13 and 201314 at Exhs. 31 to 33. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered net income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.2, 06, 630/- p. a. That thereafter, considering the age of the deceased at 39 years 5 months 29 days i.e. below 40 years, the learned Tribunal has added 50% of the aforesaid towards future rise in the income and had considered the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.3,09,945/- p. a. Thereafter deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased, learned Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency at Rs.2,32,459/- p. a. That thereafter, applying the multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.34,86,885/- towards loss of dependency. That thereafter, awarding further amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, learned Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs.35,26,885/-. That thereafter, deducting 15% towards contributory negligence of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has held that original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.29,97,852/- towards compensation for the death of deceased with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realization. 2.9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, both the Insurance Company as well as original claimants are before this Court by way of present First Appeal and the Cross Objection. 3.0. Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company - original opponent no.3 has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.34,86,885/- under the head of loss of dependency. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.2,06,630/- p.a. 3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income tax return for AY 201314, which was filed after the accident. It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income tax return for AY 201314, which was filed after the accident. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that as the deceased was self employed persons, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss by adding 50% towards future loss in income while determining the prospective income. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; 1. Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 2. Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v. Mohd. Jameel and Another reported in ( AIR 2009 SC 1219 ). 3. Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . 4. Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheelaben w/o Jayeshbhai Ramchandra Dave & others v. Vishnubhai Valjibhai Rabari & Others rendered in First Appeal no.1474 of 2012 with Cross Objection NO. 9 of 2012. 5. Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjudevi w/o Surendrasinh Bhati & Ors v. Nasirali Habibbhai & others rendered in First Appeal No.5201 of 2007. 3.3. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future economic loss considering the income tax returns for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 (Exhs. 31 and 32) and considering mean of the same and thereafter deducting income tax, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future economic loss accordingly. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal. 4.0. Shri MTM Hakim, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of original claimants. He has vehemently submitted that looking to the periodical rise in the income of the deceased, which is evident from the income tax returns for the AY 2011-12 to AY 2013-14, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded 50% of the prospective income. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in adding 50% of the income of the deceased at the time of accident towards future prospective rise in the income. 4.1. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in adding 50% of the income of the deceased at the time of accident towards future prospective rise in the income. 4.1. It is submitted that the contention on behalf of appellant Insurance Company that in case of nonsalaried/self employed/ businessmen, the future prospective rise in income is not required to be considered may not be accepted in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants that as such the payment of compensation has undergone sea change. It is submitted that earlier the income of the deceased/claimants on the date of accident alone was being taken into consideration and multiplier considering the longevity of life of the deceased/claimants was applied. It is submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants that earlier there were differed views qua the multiplicand and adding future prospective rise in the income etc. Therefore, in order to attain the uniformity, in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles of computation of compensation qua the multiplicand and multiplier. It is submitted that however, qua addition of future prospective rise in income, even in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an exception in case of non salaried/self employed/businessmen and has observed that, future prospective rise in income is to be considered only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. 4.3. It is submitted that thereafter, in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the said exception and held that in cases of non salaries/self employed/ businessmen, there has to be addition of future prospective rise in income. It is submitted that in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given elaborate reasons as to why the exception as carved out in Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) is not a sound proposition. It is submitted that in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given elaborate reasons as to why the exception as carved out in Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) is not a sound proposition. It is submitted that subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors v. Madan Mohan & Anr reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (AIR 2013 SC(Supp) 474), the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) on all the counts. It is further submitted that however the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Santosh Devi (supra) was neither cited nor considered. It is submitted that thereafter the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) came up for consideration before another three Judge Bench in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . It is submitted that by the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Sarla Verma (supra) qua multiplier but did not approve the same qua multiplicand i.e. standardised deductions of personal expenses and exception of non consideration of future prospective rise in income qua non salaried/self employed/businessmen and has approved the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) qua both the said issues. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants that in most of the decisions subsequent to the Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) and Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) (supra), the addition of future prospective rise in income qua all classes of deceased/claimant is uniformly applied and the exception as carved out in Sarla Verma (supra) is not adhered to. 4.5. 4.5. It is further submitted that subsequently the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) (supra) and Rajesh (supra) again came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways rendered in Civil Appeal No.5256 of 2008 : ( AIR 2014 SC 995 ) and the addition of future prospective rise in income, in case of self employed/businessmen has been accepted, adopted and applied also by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the same would be covered by the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances as approved in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra). It is submitted that in the said decision Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2010) 14 SCC 575 for considering the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. 4.6. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants that subsequent to the decision in the case of Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) (supra) and Rajesh (supra) all the High Courts inclusive the Gujarat High Court have been uniformly accepting, adopting and applying the same method of computation of addition of future prospective rise in income qua non salaried/self employed/businessmen as held in Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra). It is submitted that the exceptional is carved out in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is not accepted, adopted and applied whereas to attain uniformity, the same percentage of addition as the future prospective rise in income is done. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Poonam v. Rajbir Rawal etc., 2013(1) PLR 792. 4.7. It is submitted that considering the aforesaid when in the present case the income of the deceased was steadily increasing as is evident from the income returns of the AY 2011-12 to 2013 - 14, future prospective rise in income qua the deceased as considered and awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be confirmed. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss present First Appeal. 5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss present First Appeal. 5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether while awarding future economic loss and while determining the loss of dependency in case the deceased is self employed/businessmen, whether actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects is required to be considered or any addition is required to be made like in the case of a deceased who had a permanent job ? 5.1. While considering the aforesaid question, few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court are required to be referred to and considered. In the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 11) (supra) in para 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ) the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah ( AIR 2003 SC 1817 ) the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of 14 increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances" 5.2. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances" 5.2. In the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others ( AIR 2009 SC 1219 )(supra), which was delivered in the year 2009, in para 15, the Hon'ble Supreme has observed and held as under: "In our view, though the entries in the current account (Ex.P38) of the deceased and his transactions with his client, namely, Vasu Agarbathi (Ex.P23) may not per se be cogent evidence to determine the yearly or monthly income of the deceased from the business he was carrying on, yet we feel that these are some indicators in support of the appellants' plea that the business income of the deceased in the succeeding years could be more than what was declared for the year ended 31st March, 1998. But it is again in the realm of speculation, particularly when, unlike income from salaries, earnings in a business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the same time may diminish with a recession in trade." 5.3. However, thereafter in the case of Shakti Devi (AIR 2011 SC (Civ)164) (supra) in para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the circumstances of the case, as the deceased was to get employment in the forest department after retirement of his father, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that actual income at the time of deceased's death needs to be revised and taking into consideration the special circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- (against his actual income at Rs.1000/- per month from the business). In para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "So far as the present case is concerned, at the time of accident, the deceased was 22year old and not married. He was running a general store from his house and earning about Rs.1000/- per month from the business. In Sarla Verma 3, this Court stated that where the deceased was self-employed, the court shall usually take only the actual income at the time of death; a departure from there should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In Sarla Verma 3, this Court stated that where the deceased was self-employed, the court shall usually take only the actual income at the time of death; a departure from there should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Does the present case involve special circumstances? In our view, it does. The evidence has come that the deceased was to get employment in the forest department after the retirement of his father. Obviously the evidence is based on the Government policy. The deceased, thus, had a reasonable expectation of the Government employment in near future. In the circumstances, the actual income at the time of deceased's death needs to be revised and taking into consideration the special circumstances of the case, in our view, the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be fixed at Rs.2000/-. As regards the personal expenses, since the deceased was not married, we are satisfied that the principle stated in Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) that 50% should be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor may be applied. Seen thus, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,000/-. Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalisation of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. The exact age of the claimant has not come on record. As per the evidence of AW1 (Pankaj Kumar Sinha), on the date of his deposition, the claimant's age was about 63 years. The date of deposition of AW1 is not available. The accident occurred in 1991 and the date of decision of the Tribunal is June 6, 2000. Ordinarily, the Tribunal would not have taken much time after the evidence was complete. We may assume that the statement of AW1 was recorded somewhere in 1998 or 1999. The date of deposition of AW1 is not available. The accident occurred in 1991 and the date of decision of the Tribunal is June 6, 2000. Ordinarily, the Tribunal would not have taken much time after the evidence was complete. We may assume that the statement of AW1 was recorded somewhere in 1998 or 1999. If that be so, the age of the claimant on the date of the accident would be about 5455 years. As per the table prepared in Sarla Verma 3, the multiplier of 11 would, therefore, be applicable. By multiplying the annual loss of dependency (Rs.12000/-) with the multiplier of 11, the claimant becomes entitled to the compensation in the sum of Rs.1,32,000/-. The compensation determined by the Tribunal at Rs.60,000/- and confirmed by the High Court in the appeal is manifestly erroneous and is enhanced to Rs.1,32,000/-." 5.4. That thereafter, in the case of Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 , para 14) (supra) while considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 )(supra), in para 14 to 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: 14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. 17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 5.5. That thereafter, in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) (supra) which is a three Judge Bench judgment, while approving the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 35 and 36 has observed and held as under: "35. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma 17, this Court has noted earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ), Sarla Dixit ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ) and Abati Bezbaruah ( AIR 2003 SC 1817 ) and in paragraph 24 of the Report held as under: "24.In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 36. The standardisation of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases." 5.6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) (supra) two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the matter to the Larger Bench on two common questions namely (1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be scrupulously applied in all cases; and (2) Whether the determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, as regards dimension and future prospects. 5.7. However, subsequently and thereafter in the case of Rajesh and others (supra) after following/considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that in the case of self employed or on fixed wages, in case deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be the addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects and it is further observed and held that actual income should the income after paying the tax if any. However, at this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others (supra) earlier three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others (AIR 2013 SC (Supp)474) (supra) was neither cited and/or brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to consider three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others (supra). 5.8. Recently in the case of Sanjay Verma ( AIR 2014 SC 995 ) (Supra) after taking note of all the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra), Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) (supra), Rajesh and others (supra), Reshma Kumari and others (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) (supra) and Shakti Devi (AIR 2011 SC (Civ)164) (supra) and taking into account the age of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had steady income as evidenced by the income tax returns, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of accident. It is required to be noted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra) and after taking note of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said decision it is observed that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was self employed, the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income, unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. That thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another, there is practical application of the aforesaid principle. However, at this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra) it was a case of accidental injury and it was not a case of fatal accident. 5.9. However, at this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra) it was a case of accidental injury and it was not a case of fatal accident. 5.9. In the case of Sheelaben w/o Jayeshbhai Ramchandra Dave (supra) the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider both the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as well as Santosh Devi (supra), and thereafter the Division Bench has observed and held that the case of a businessmen stands totally on different footing as there would not be automatic rise in the profit of the businessmen with the rise in the cost of living. In para 12, the Division Bench has observed and held as under: Having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned above and the authorities cited before us, we are of the opinion that, as in the case on hand, the deceased was not a self-employed person or a person drawing fixed wages etc., but he was a businessman, the judicial note of various aspects like rise in salary with the rise in cost of living etc., taken by the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) for awarding of 30% prospective income in absence of the evidence cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case of a businessman stands totally on different footing as there would not be automatic rise in the profit of the businessman with the rise in the cost of living. A businessman would be required to put strenuous efforts before his profit rise, and such strenuous efforts can be inferred only if the evidence to the effect that the businessman who died in the accident had such business skill as would have allowed him to prosper in future. Therefore, on the facts of the case, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal on this count. 5.10. Therefore, on the facts of the case, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal on this count. 5.10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has observed that in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme it was a case of the self employed or a person who is paid fixed wages and nowhere the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of prospective income of the businessmen. 5.11. In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Thacker Narottam Kalyanji, 2001(1) ACJ 391 in para 20 while dealing with similar issue, the Division Bench of this Court has observed and held as under: "No hard and fast rule can be uniformly applied to all the cases of compensation arising out of the death of the deceased. The cases in which the men are engaged in service or professional skill are far easier to be dealt with because total average earning can be determined and also the dependency benefits. In the case of business flourishing and going on substantially if not wholly because of the business skill of the deceased do not present any difficulty. In a case like this whatever is earned by the deceased can be legitimately thought to be the outcome of the acumen of the businessman concerned but where the business was not commenced and it was proposed to be started it cannot be said in what manner the skill of the deceased was going to play part in successful running of such business. In ordinary business many factors contribute to make the business a successful going concern, for example capital, goodwill earned in the past, place of business and also the past factors of the business had to be taken into account. Business calibre of the deceased and proper supervision and control by the entrepreneur are very important factors in determining the income of the deceased. Consequently, those who put forth claims arising out of the death of such businessman should produce reasonable evidence on the record to show the nature of business, its dimensions, its potentialities and latent dangers and also the contribution of the personal skill of the businessman in mending and manning the business. 5.12. Consequently, those who put forth claims arising out of the death of such businessman should produce reasonable evidence on the record to show the nature of business, its dimensions, its potentialities and latent dangers and also the contribution of the personal skill of the businessman in mending and manning the business. 5.12. In the case of Anujdevi w/o Surendrasinh Bhati and others rendered in First Appeal No. 5201 of 2007 with First Appeal No.1901 of 2007 after following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) and in the case of death of businessmen, it is held by the Division of this Court that nothing is to be added if the deceased is businessmen. 6.0. Now, some of the decisions of this Court, upon which, much reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the original claimants are required to be referred to and considered. In the case of Mohinaben Mahendrabhai Shah and Ors in First Appeal No.2808 of 1993 in the case of businessmen having various types of business and after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (Supra) has added 30% of the actual income at the time of death while considering the future prospects. However, it is required to be noted that in the said decision the Division Bench has not specifically considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) made in para 24. 6.1. That thereafter, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Manjulaben Wd/ o Jayantilal Rughnathji Brahmbhatt and others rendered in First Appeal No.1681 of 2005 having noted that deceased was in the business of tiles and marble and therefore, had future prospects in such type of business, the Division Bench had added 50% of the actual income at the time of accident/death while considering the prospective income. 6.2. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Pasmina Wd/o Pravinsinh Parmar and others rendered in First Appeal No.3141 of 2006 with Cross Objection No.159 of 2009 in case where deceased was Civil Engineer and active partner in the partnership firm doing the business of construction and in the case of deceased aged only 29 years, added 50% towards prospective income. However, it is required to be noted that in the said decision there is no detail discussion on the issue and even subsequent decisions referred to herein above were not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, the Division Bench had no occasion to deal with and consider the aforesaid issue in detail. On the similar ground, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deviben Rajabhai Odedara v. Driver - Mukundsingh Nandsingh Rajavat rendered in First Appeal No.1923 of 2006 shall not be of any assistance to the original claimants. 6.3. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Urmilaben Ashokbhai Patel rendered in First Appeal No.2163 of 2014 deceased who was having the dining hall in the case of situated very close to one of the biggest hospital in the State and having observed that it would be obviously frequented by large number of patients and relatives every day year around and having found that the business thus had an excellent potential, the Division Bench has confirmed the decision of the Tribunal granting 30% increase for the future rise in income. 7.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties on the issue and considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and having differed views, we are of the opinion that even if the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) (Para 24) is considered, it appears that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision are with respect to deceased who is self employed or who is paid fixed wages. Even in the case of death of self employed or a person who was on fixed salary without provision for annual increments etc., it is observed that the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Thus, considering the above, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that in no circumstances, there shall be addition of future rise in income while considering the prospective income. Thus, considering the above, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that in no circumstances, there shall be addition of future rise in income while considering the prospective income. However, it is required to be noted that the said observations are made with respect to deceased self employed or on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments etc. Even, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) (supra), the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) are with respect to deceased, a self employed or was on a fixed salary and not with respect to deceased who was a businessmen. It is required to be noted that in the present case the question is with respect to death of a businessmen. 8. Now, so far as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (Supra) and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision with respect to future prospects/addition to be made with respect to prospective income is concerned, it is required to be noted that even in the said decision there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in no case there shall be any addition while considering the prospective income and that where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary, only the actual income at the time of death is to be considered while awarding future economic loss. It is true that in para 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts would usually take only the actual income at the time of death. However, it is further observed that departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Thus, even as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is permissible to take income more than actual income at the time of death while considering the future economic loss, however the same shall be in rare and in exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Thus, even as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is permissible to take income more than actual income at the time of death while considering the future economic loss, however the same shall be in rare and in exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Thus, if on leading evidences, a case is made out that there was periodical rise in income regularly, while awarding future economic loss even in the case of death of businessman and/or self employed while awarding future economic loss some rise in income is permissible. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) it was not a case of death of businessman. 9. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that no hard and fast rule can be uniformly applied to all the cases of compensation arising out of the death of the deceased businessmen. In the case of business flourishing and going on substantially if not wholly because of the business skill of the deceased, whatever is earned by the deceased can be legitimately thought to be the outcome of the acumen of the businessmen concerned. In ordinary business many factors contribute to make the business a successful going concern. For example capital, goodwill earned in the past, place of business and also the past factors of the business had to be taken into account. As observed in the case of Thacker Narottam Kalyanji and others ( 2000 AIHC 3117 (Guj)) (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court, Business calibre of the deceased and proper supervision and control by the entrepreneur are very important factors in determining the income of the deceased and consequently, those who put forth claims arising out of the death of such businessmen should produce reasonable evidence on the record to show the nature of business; its dimensions; its potentialities and latent dangers and also the contribution of the personal skill of the businessmen in mending and managing the business. Meaning thereby, if on the basis of the evidence on record, nature of business; its dimensions; its potentialities, more and constant rise in the income in last few years which can be curled out from the income tax returns there can be addition towards rise while considering the prospective income and which awarded future loss of income. Meaning thereby, if on the basis of the evidence on record, nature of business; its dimensions; its potentialities, more and constant rise in the income in last few years which can be curled out from the income tax returns there can be addition towards rise while considering the prospective income and which awarded future loss of income. However, as observed above, for that there must be a cogent and reasonable evidence on record to justify the claim of addition of future rise in the income while determining the prospective income and awarded future loss of income. 10. That takes us to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? While passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,26,885/- towards compensation for the death of deceased under different heads and after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence of the deceased i.e. deducting Rs.5,29,033/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.29,97,852/- as under: 1. Loss of dependency, future income (Rs. 2,32,458/-X15M) Rs. 34,86,885/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 35,26,885/- Less: 15% Contributory negligence. Rs. 5,29,033/- Net Payable Rs. 29,97,852/- 10.1 While awarding future economic loss i.e. loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has considered the annual income of the deceased at the time of death at Rs.2,06,630/- and has added further 50% of the aforesaid as prospective income and has considered loss of dependency at Rs.3,09,945/-. Considering the documentary evidence on record, more particularly, income tax returns for the relevant years produced at Exhs. 31,32, and 33, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal is justified in considering the net income of the deceased at the time of death/accident at Rs.2,06,630/- p.a. Considering the periodical rise in income, which is evident from the income tax returns i.e. Rs.2,12,678/- in AY 2011-12 ; Rs.2,34,192/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs.2,62,416/- in AY 2013 -14 and nature of the business and future prospects, we are of the opinion that if while awarding future economic loss 20% of the actual income at the time of death is added as future rise in income, it will meet the end of justice and same shall be in the fitness of things. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,47,830/- instead of Rs.3,09,945/- as observed and determined by the learned Tribunal. Looking to the fact that there are four family members in the family who were dependent on the deceased's income, as rightly deducted by the learned Tribunal 1/4 of the aforesaid is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, loss of future economic loss/dependency to the family members would come to Rs.1,85,873/- ( Rs.1,85,875/- rounding off). As the deceased was aged 39 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) multiplier of 15 is required to be applied. Hence, applying multiplier of 15, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.27,88,995/- under the head of future economic loss. As the accident in question had taken place in the month of June 2013 considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 224 of 2005 dated 19.11.2014 in the case of Kalpanaba Mahavirsinhy Solani & others v. Prop. Of B. Kumar & Co & Anr., the claimant shall be entitled to total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the conventional heads i.e. combined heads of loss of consortium, loss of life and love and affection as well as loss of estate and further sum of Rs.10,000/- for post death ceremony. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation under the different heads as under: 1. Loss of dependency future income (Rs. 1,85,870/- X 15M) Rs.. 27,88,995/-. 2. Loss of consortium, loss of life and love and affection as well as loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation Rs.28,98,995/- (Rounded Of Rs.28,99,000/- ) Less :15% Contributory negligence. Rs.4,34,850/- Net Payable Rs.24,64,150/- 11. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total sum of Rs.24,64,150/- instead of Rs.29,97,852/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realization. Thus, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent and is hereby accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to total Rs.24,64,150/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realisation from all the original opponents jointly and severely. Thus, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent and is hereby accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to total Rs.24,64,150/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realisation from all the original opponents jointly and severely. First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and consequently the cross objection preferred by the original claimant stand dismissed. It goes without saying that if any amount deposited/paid in excess to the aforesaid, Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back the same, which may be paid/ returned to the Insurance Company, more particularly, from the fixed deposit lying with the learned Tribunal if any. 12. With this, First Appeal No.2366 of 2014 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and Cross Objection No. 18 of 2015 stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.