JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. As all appeals arise from the common accident and common questions are to be considered, they are being considered simultaneously. It may be recorded that all appeals are preferred by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 2. First Appeal No. 1850/12 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 376/08, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,91,298/-. Whereas, First Appeal No. 1851/12 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 380/08, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,017/- and First Appeal No. 1852/12 has been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 377/08, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,15,656/-. In all the claim petitions, interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application until the amount is realised has also been awarded. 3. The short facts of the case appears to be that on the date of the accident, i.e., on 20.05.2008, when deceased Rekhaben, Satishbhai and other injured persons were going in Maruti Van No. GJ.16 AA-5411, the said van was being driven by the Dharmendrabhai and when the said van reached nearby the spot of the accident, the driver of the Truck No. GJ.3 V-8819 dashed the truck with the Maruti van and resultantly, there was serious accident. Rekhaben and Satishbhai died on the spot and the driver of the van was also injured. Such accident gave rise to five claim petitions for different compensation. The details of the said claim petitions are - 1. MACP No. 376/08 for Rs.60,00,000/- 2. MACP No. 377/08 for Rs.30,00,000/- 3. MACP No. 378/08 for Rs.2,00,000/- 4. MACP No. 379/08 for Rs.2,00,000/- 5. MACP No. 380/08 for Rs.3,00,000/- The Tribunal at the conclusion of the respective claim petitions passed the common judgment and award, whereby the above referred compensation in the respective petitions was awarded. It may be recorded that as observed earlier, the appeals are only in respect of the judgment and award in three claim petitions being MACP Nos. 376/08, 380/08 and 377/08. No appeal is preferred in other two claim petitions, viz., MACPs No. 378/08 and 379/08. 4. We have heard Ms.Renu Singh for Mr. Ravani for the appellants in all the appeals, Mr. 376/08, 380/08 and 377/08. No appeal is preferred in other two claim petitions, viz., MACPs No. 378/08 and 379/08. 4. We have heard Ms.Renu Singh for Mr. Ravani for the appellants in all the appeals, Mr. Majmudar for the insurance company of the truck, Mr. R.D. Mehta for insurance company of the Maruti Van and Mr. Hiren Modi for respondents no.7 and 8 in First Appeal No. 1852/12. We have considered the record and proceedings. We have considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants in MACP No. 376/08 raised the contention that the contributory negligence as held by the Tribunal of the Maruti Van is on higher side to the extent of 25%. In her submission, the driver of the truck ought to have been held fully negligent for the accident. It was submitted that the Tribunal has committed error and therefore, the same may be considered in the present appeals. 6. The examination of the contention raised shows that it was a case of head on collision between Maruti Van and the Truck. The panchnama shows that the damage to the Maruti Van is to great extent. Whereas, the damage to the truck is negligible inasmuch as the cleaner side of the truck was found to be depressed. Further, as per the panchnama, there were brake marks of the truck on the road. Whereas, no brake marks were found of the Maruti Van. The position of the truck in turtle condition was found on the centre of the road, whereas, Maruti Van was pushed back. Had the Maruti Van being driven on extreme left or had the driver of the Maruti Van driven the vehicle carefully, the accident could have been avoided. Therefore, it is not a matter where there was no fault whatsoever of the driver of the Maruti Van. At the same time, the truck was a loaded truck and as per the FIR, the driver of the truck had also lost control. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has attributed 25% negligence to the driver of the Maruti Van and 75% negligence to the driver of the truck. In our opinion, such a view taken by the Tribunal could not be said as unreasonable or perverse to the case which may call for interference in exercise of the appellate power. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has attributed 25% negligence to the driver of the Maruti Van and 75% negligence to the driver of the truck. In our opinion, such a view taken by the Tribunal could not be said as unreasonable or perverse to the case which may call for interference in exercise of the appellate power. Therefore, the said contention raised on behalf of the appellants does not deserve to be accepted. 7. However, there is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants for non-consideration of the prospective income in MACP Nos. 376/08 and 377/08 of the deceased concerned by the Tribunal. The aspect of prospective income also deserves to be considered to some extent even in MACP No. 380/08. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court for the prospective income, has observed at paragraph 24, as under: "24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah 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 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." 8. It appears that the above referred decision of the Apex Court was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 8. It appears that the above referred decision of the Apex Court was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not properly considered the same and has discarded the aspect of prospective income. In our view, in MACP Nos. 376/08 and 377/08, the prospective income to the extent of 50% for both the deceased was required to be considered and thereafter, the deduction towards income tax and the deduction towards personal expenses were required to be considered. 9. If the calculation is made accordingly in MACP No. 376/08 of the income including prospective income, the salary was Rs.17,500/- per month and therefore, for the purpose of prospective income of 50%, i.e. Rs.8,750/- would be required to be added and accordingly, the income including the prospective income would come to Rs.26,250/- per month and if multiplied by 12 per year, the said amount would come to Rs.3,15,000/-. The year of accident is 2008 and taxable exemption limit at that time was Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, Rs.2,15,000/- would be the taxable income of the deceased where different slabs were provided but a judicial note can be taken that the tax slabs for the subsequent period have substantially gone down and the exemption limit has been substantially increased. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we find that for the purpose of tax deduction, the amount should be calculated at the rate of 10% of the taxable income. Accordingly, such amount would be Rs.21,500/- and if deducted from the above referred gross income of Rs.3,15,000/-, the net amount would be Rs.2,93,500/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, ?rd of the amount, i.e., Rs.97,833/-, would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses and ?rd of the amount would be Rs.1,95,666/-. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased and accordingly, if the multiplier of 16 is applied, the total amount would come to Rs.31,30,656/- and not the amount of Rs.22,40,064/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In the same manner, in MACP No. 377/08, the deceased was having salary of Rs.10,864/- per month at the time of the accident. 10. In the same manner, in MACP No. 377/08, the deceased was having salary of Rs.10,864/- per month at the time of the accident. If 50% towards prospective income is considered, such amount would come to Rs.5,432/- and accordingly, the prospective income would be Rs.16,296/- per month and if multiplied by 12, the amount would be Rs.1,95,552/-. Out of the said amount, as observed earlier, the exemption limit for income tax was Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, Rs.95,552/- would be the taxable income and if the tax deduction is considered at the rate of 10%, about Rs.9,500/- would be would be required to be deducted towards income tax on the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, the net amount after deduction of income tax would come to Rs.1,86,052/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, ?rd of the amount, i.e., Rs.62,017/- would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses and accordingly, ?rd of the amount would come to Rs.1,24,035/-. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 and therefore, if multiplier of 16 is applied, the total amount would come to Rs.19,84,560/- and not Rs.13,90,656/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In MACP No. 380/08, it is true that the injured claimant was driver and there was no salary certificate produced. The Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, in case of self employed person, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported at (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Apex Court, after considering the earlier decision, has observed at paragraphs 8 and 9 as under: "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. 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. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that no prospective income in case of the injured claimant would be required to be considered, but at the same time, such would not be at par with the person having systematic salaried income or earning income from business in a systematic manner. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that as the deceased was of young age of 30 years and he was a driver who may fall in the category of self employed, if not salaried, 30% income was required to be added keeping in view the prospects as a driver. At this stage, we may make useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court to the very decision in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra) at paragraph 11, which reads as under: "11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (supra) at paragraph 11, which reads as under: "11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependents should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim." Under these circumstances, if 30% is added to the basic income considered by the Tribunal of Rs.3,000/- per month, it would be Rs.3,900/- as the income including prospective income. The whole body disability is considered at 10% and accordingly, would be Rs.390/- per month and Rs.4,680/- per year towards future economic loss and multiplier of 16 if applied as already applied by the Tribunal, such amount would come to Rs.74,880/- and not Rs.57,600/- as assessed by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards future economic loss in the respective claim petitions would be required to be modified. 13. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded for the loss of expectation of love and loss of consortium is much on a lower side because the date of the accident is May 2008 and considering the recent trend of the Apex Court for awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium and loss of expectation of love, we find that it would be just and proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- under the joint head of loss of consortium and loss of expectation of love in MACP Nos. 376/08 and 377/08 since in both cases, the person concerned had expired and they were fatal cases in the accident. 14. The other amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain, shock and suffering in the respective claim petitions appears to be reasonable to which we are not inclined to interfere. 15. 376/08 and 377/08 since in both cases, the person concerned had expired and they were fatal cases in the accident. 14. The other amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain, shock and suffering in the respective claim petitions appears to be reasonable to which we are not inclined to interfere. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the concerned claimant of original claim petition No. 376/08 (First Appeal No. 1850/12) would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.24,22,992/- as per the following details - Rs.31,30,656/- Total compensation Rs.1,00,000/- Towards loss of estate, etc. Rs.32,30,656/- Rs. 8,07,664/- 25% Contributory negligence Rs.24,22,992/- Actual compensation Claimant of MACP No. 380/08 (First Appeal No. 1851/12) would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,30,728/- as per the following details – Rs. 74,880/- Future economic loss Rs.10,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.86,423/- Medical and Hospital Exp. Rs.3,000/- Loss of income (1 month) Rs.1,74,303/- Total Entitlement Rs.43,575/- Contributory negligence (25%) Rs.1,30,728/- Actual compensation The claimants of MACP No. 377/08 (First Appeal No. 1852/12) would be entitled to compensation of Rs.20,84,560/- as per the following details – Rs. 19,84,554/- Total compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards loss of estate, etc. Rs. 20,84,560/- Actual compensation The Tribunal has made the apportionment in the respective claim petitions between the minor and the parents to which we are not inclined to interfere. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal would remain the same even on the enhanced amount of compensation. 16. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. The additional amount of compensation shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court. Appeals partly allowed.