JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 7.5.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Azamgarh awarding a sum of Rs. 7,03,500/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation on death of one Sunil Singh in an accident involving the bus of the appellant. 2. Sole ground pressed before us, during the course of argument, is that Tribunal has wrongly awarded future prospect, even though the deceased was in private employment working on fixed wages and the claimants failed to establish his regular monthly salary. It is further submitted that the question of grant of future prospect to self-employed or person working on fixed wages, has been referred for adjudication to a larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pushpa, S.L.P. (C) No. 16735 of 2014 vide order dated 2nd July, 2014. 3. The question of grant of future prospect, in cases, where the deceased was self-employed or was drawing a fixed salary, has been drawing the attention of the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of addition of income of future prospect, in paragraph 24 of the reports observed that where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the Courts would only take annual income at the time of death and the departure therefrom shall be made only in rare and exceptional cases including special circumstances. Subsequently, in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “14. Subsequently, in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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. 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. 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. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 4. In the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court was constituted on a reference made by a two Judges Bench. One of the referred question was as under. “Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?” 5. One of the referred question was as under. “Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?” 5. The issue was answered in paragraph 39 and 43 of the report, which reads as under. “39. The standardization 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. 43. While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.” 6. Again in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held that in case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages where the victim was below 40 years of age, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income while computing the future prospect. In case, where the deceased was in the age group of 45 to 50 years, addition should be 30%. However, in case, where the deceased is between the age group of 50 to 60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospect. It may be relevant to quote from paragraphs 8 and 9 from the said report, which reads as under. “8. However, in case, where the deceased is between the age group of 50 to 60 years, there should be an addition of 15% towards future prospect. It may be relevant to quote from paragraphs 8 and 9 from the said report, which reads 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. 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.” Subsequently, noticing aforesaid conflicting views in the case of Rajesh (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra) by a Bench of equal coram, the issue was referred for adjudication by a larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 , vide order dated 2.7.2014. 7. Thus, this issue is still pending adjudication by a larger Bench. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 , vide order dated 2.7.2014. 7. Thus, this issue is still pending adjudication by a larger Bench. However, the conflicting views expressed by two Benches of equal coram and pendency of reference will not stand in the way in proceeding with the matter, inasmuch as the State of U.P. has introduced Rule 220-A in the Motor Vehicles Rules vide notification dated 26.9.2011 providing for future prospect to be added in actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased. It may be relevant to produce relevant part of Rule 220-A of the Rules. “220-A. Determination of compensation.— (1) ........ (2)........ (3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased as under- (i) Below 40 years of age : 50% of the salary, (ii) Between 40-50 years of age : 30% of the salary. (iii) More than 50 years of age : 20% of the salary. (iv) When wages not sufficiently proved : 50% towards inflation and price index.” 8. A perusal of the Rule goes to show that it does not make any distinction between the self-employed or salaried person. Further the Rule was introduced in Statute book vide notification dated 26.9.2011 and admittedly the accident, in the case in hand, took place on 18.1.2013, i.e., after enforcement of Rule 220-A, and thus, the same stands attracted with full force. 9. The Tribunal found that the deceased was falling between the age group of 20-25 years and was technically qualified and, thus, added 50% of the income, of the deceased determined by it, towards future prospect, which is strictly in accordance with the Rule 3 (i) of Rule 220 A of the Rules. 10. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the sole ground urged before us does not enure to any benefit of the appellant and the arguments advanced in support of the said ground do not merit any consideration. No other ground was pressed before us. 11. The appeal, thus, being bereft of merit, stands dismissed in limine. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any orders as to costs.