JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide impugned judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 passed in Civil Misc. (MACT) case No.400/1996 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.13,31,872/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 05.07.1996 deceased Om Prakash along with his wife Vimla Devi and son Ravi Chouhan were going from Jodhpur to Jaipur in Bus No. RJ19-P- 2642. The driver of the bus was driving the bus with a great speed rashly and negligently, due to which the but got turtled near Village Bhavi on Jodhpur Jaipur Highway. In the said accident, Om Prakash sustained grievous head injuries and subsequently died during treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply denying the contents of the claim petition and submitted that the driver was not having the valid driving licence and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondents Nos.1 & 2 was proceeded ex parte. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants produced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 awarded compensation of Rs.13,31,872/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. Counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and needs to be enhanced as claimed in the claim petition. It is argued that not a single penny has been awarded towards future prospects although the deceased was a government employ and 48 years old at the time of accident and his income would have certainly increased in the future. Counsel further argued that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side. It is argued that not a single penny has been awarded towards future prospects although the deceased was a government employ and 48 years old at the time of accident and his income would have certainly increased in the future. Counsel further argued that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side. It is thus prayed the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified and compensation be suitably enhanced. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimants/appellants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT I, Jodhpur. At the time of accident, the deceased Om Prakash was a bank employee on the post of Jr. Manager in Central Bank of India, Moti Katla Branch, Jaipur and he was getting Rs.12,517.72/- per month. The aforesaid facts are not disputed. 7. Coming now to the argument that the appellants/claimants should have been awarded additional amount of compensation under the head of future prospects considering that if deceased was working as Jr. Manager in Central Bank of India, he would have progressed in his career and earned much more money than the emoluments that he was receiving. I find that the evidence on record proved that deceased was working on the post of Jr. Manager in Central Bank of India, which is a Government of India Undertaking. He had the future prospects of being promoted and in that event, receiving salary in the higher pay scale apart from receiving increments etc. in the course of time and therefore, by corresponding number of years apart from the fact that his income has to be taken as a factor to determine quantum of compensation, this has also be considered that by corresponding number of years, he would also be gaining promotions, increments in his service career with passing time. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 24 in Sarla Verma (Supra) held 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 Bezabaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 24 in Sarla Verma (Supra) held 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 Bezabaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. 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. (Whether 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. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was 48 years old when he expired and he was Jr. Manager in Central Bank of India and in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), benefit of future prospects should be granted by adding 30% of the total income of the deceased. Income Tax Slabs for Individuals for the Financial Year 1995- 1996 and Assessment Year 1996-1997 is as under : Sl. No. Income Tax Slab Income Tax Rate Payable 1 Rs. 0 to 40,000 No Income Tax 2 Rs. 40,001 to 60,000 20.00% 3 Rs. 60,001 to 120,000 30.00% 4 Rs. 120,001 and above 40.00% 10. According to the aforesaid income tax slab, the amount of tax to be paid by the deceased for the financial year 1995-1996 would come to Rs.34,000/-. After deducting income tax, the actual annual salary of the deceased would be Rs.116213/- [Rs.1,50,213 - Rs.34,000/-]. 11. 60,001 to 120,000 30.00% 4 Rs. 120,001 and above 40.00% 10. According to the aforesaid income tax slab, the amount of tax to be paid by the deceased for the financial year 1995-1996 would come to Rs.34,000/-. After deducting income tax, the actual annual salary of the deceased would be Rs.116213/- [Rs.1,50,213 - Rs.34,000/-]. 11. After adding 30% of the total annual income i.e. Rs.34,864/-, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,077/- (Rs.1,16,213 + Rs.34,864/-) and after deducting ? on account of personal expenses, the actual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,00,718/- [Rs.1,51,077/- - Rs.50,359/-]. 12. So far as the adopting of multiplier of 13 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the same according to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act so also in consonance with the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 13. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 1,00,718 x 13 = Rs.13,09,334/- 14. So far as the amount of compensation under the head of consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the appellant-wife and Rs.10,000/- to the appellant-son. As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the spouse of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a lower side and should have been awarded at least Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant-wife and Rs.20,000/- to the appellant-son. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of mental agony and loss of love and affection to the father of the deceased. In the opinion of this Court, Rs.20,000/- should have been awarded to the appellant-father of the deceased on that count. Thus, it is held that the appellant No.1-wife is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and appellant Nos. 2 & 3 son and father of the deceased are entitled to Rs.20,000/- each towards consortium for mental agony and loss of love and affection. The award of Rs.10,000/- toward funeral expenses is also on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The award of Rs.10,000/- toward funeral expenses is also on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under other heads to the claimants does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,09,334/- instead of Rs.13,01,872/- on account of loss of dependency and the claimant-wife is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and deprivation of married life and the claimants son and father are entitled to Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs.14,64,334/- instead of Rs.13,31,872/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.