Order : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Principal District Judge cum M.A.C.T, Gumla in M.A.C Case No.41/2011 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.7,69,544/-to the respondent-claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from 07.06.2013 till its realisation. 2. The claimant's case is that the deceased-Anuj Kujur had boarded a Bus bearing registration no.JH 01A G-5631 at Gumla to go to his village Raidih. That the deceased was standing at the gate of the bus which was opened suddenly whereupon the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was brought to R.I.M.S, Ranchi where he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record the Tribunal has passed the judgment/award impugned in the present appeal. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts by adding 50 per cent of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. That it has been established by the testimony of witnesses that the deceased was a casual labourer and the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 has held that 50 per cent of the income towards future prospects can be added if the deceased has a fixed annual income or is a salaried per;son but in cases where it is found that the deceased was self-employed or working on a fixed salary(without provision for annual increments etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. Learned counsel has further submitted that the said ratio has been upheld by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 . It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled principle by adding 50% of the income towards future prospect on the basis of the decision in the case of Rajesh Vrs. Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded 50 per cent of the income towards future prospects and the computed compensation is just and reasonable. Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded 50 per cent of the income towards future prospects and the computed compensation is just and reasonable. It is further submitted that the learned court below while referring to the decision of Hon'ble three Judges Bench in the case of Rajesh vrs. Rajbir Singh(Supra) has referred to the decision rendered in the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the future prospects should be applicable also in case of a self-employed person and person on fixed wages. He has referred to para 11 of the said decision and submitted that the deceased was aged 22 years and he was a casual labourer and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased after considering the index of the minimum wages and has rightly added 50 per cent of the income as future prospects. It is urged that in the case of Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh(Supra) the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma(Supra) was elaborated and distinguished and the impugned judgment and award is in consonance with the settled principle. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the aforesaid decisions. In the case of Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh(Supra) the ratio laid down in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra) has not been discussed or considered or distinguished. It is relevant to point out that a coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A.NO.123/2013 has held that in the case of death of a casual labourer having a fixed monthly income the future prospects cannot be added and has relied on the decisions rendered in the case of Sarla Verma(Supra) and Reshma Kumari(Supra). 6. It is evident that the deceased was a casual labourer and he did not have a fixed annual income neither he was self-employed. To maintain parity in the order it would be prudent to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Reshma Kumari(Supra) relied upon by the coordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, addition of 50 per cent to the income of the deceased calculated on the basis of minimum wages is held to be not in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma(Supra). Accordingly, addition of 50 per cent to the income of the deceased calculated on the basis of minimum wages is held to be not in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma(Supra). The income of the deceased has been assessed by the trial court at the rate of 153x26=3978 which may be rounded upto Rs.4,000/-. Since the deceased died as bachelor accordingly 50 per cent of his income shall be deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to around Rs.2,000/-. The multiplier applicable as per the case of Sarla Verma(Supra) is 18 accordingly the total loss of dependency is computed at 2000x12x18=4,32,000/-+ Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection+ Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,57,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 31.05.2011 instead of from the date of filing of written statement by the Insurance Company as held by the learned court below. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs.7,69,544/-awarded by the learned court below is modified to the extent noted above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that they have already paid Rs.5,00,000/-as part payment of the awarded compensation. The amount so paid shall be deducted from the awarded compensation amount. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be returned to the appellant by the Registry of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Principal District Judge cum M.A.C.T, Gumla in M.A.C Case No.41/2011 is modified to the extent as noted above. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.