JUDGMENT : 1. This first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award, dated 29.11.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Barabanki in MAC No. 250 of 2013 (Smt. Shabnam & others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others), whereby the award of Rs. 4,82,200/- along with 6% interest has been passed against New India Assurance Company Ltd. Since the claimants/appellants are not satisfied with the aforesaid award, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 06.06.2013 at about 12.00 hours in noon in front of Sitarampur Bare, within the jurisdiction of Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki, when the deceased Md. Hasib, who is husband of Appellant No. 1, son of Appellant No. 2 and father of Appellant No. 3 was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. 41U/7772 was hit by a truck bearing registration No. UP78BT/0897, due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries and he died instantly at the place of accident. In respect of the said accident, a case being Case Crime No. 117/2013 was registered in Police Station - Asandra, District - Barabanki under Section 279, 304-A, 427, IPC. It is stated that the deceased was running a hair cutting salon and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 26 years, hence a claim of Rs. 38,50,700/- was filed. It was found that the said truck involved in the accident was insured with Opposite Party No. 1 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) and owned by Opposite Party No. 2 (Suresh Chandra Bhatia) and driven by Opposite Party No. 3 (Ram Karan Singh). The insurance company and the owner of the said truck filed their written statements before the Tribunal, however, in spite of sufficient service, the driver of the said truck Opposite Party No. 3 had neither appeared in the court, nor filed any written statement, as such, the case proceeded ex parte against him. The insurance company and the owner of the said truck filed their written statements before the Tribunal, however, in spite of sufficient service, the driver of the said truck Opposite Party No. 3 had neither appeared in the court, nor filed any written statement, as such, the case proceeded ex parte against him. The insurance company had denied the claim and pleaded in the written statement that at the time of accident, relevant papers of the truck involved in the said accident were not valid and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It was also denied that the deceased was having monthly income of Rs. 25,000/-. However, the owner of the truck in his written statement has disclosed that the said truck involved in the accident was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch-Kanpur under the valid policy, which was effective from 26-12-2012 to 25-12-2013, which covers the date of accident. It was further pleaded that other relevant documents of the truck like fitness and permit were also effective on the date of accident. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The driver of the said truck during course of driving lost his control over the said truck and due to which the said truck collided with the motorcycle. While deciding Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that on the date of accident the said truck was validly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. and while deciding Issue No. 4, it was held that the said truck was driven by the driver of the truck with a valid and effective driving licence which was valid from 19.07.2011 to 18.07.2014. While deciding Issue No. 5, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that other relevant papers of the truck like registration, fitness and permit were also valid at the time of accident. While deciding Issue No. 5, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that other relevant papers of the truck like registration, fitness and permit were also valid at the time of accident. However, while deciding Issue No. 6, which was relating to the compensation for which the claimants-appellants were entitled, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 26 years, so far as monthly income of the deceased was concerned, the Tribunal had not accepted the plea of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- - Rs. 30,000/- per months because the claimants - appellants could not established that the deceased was running a hair cutting salon in Azad Market at Indira Nagar, the claimants-appellants could not produce any shop number or any registration number regarding the shop. The Tribunal further held that claimants-appellants have also failed to produce any income certificate of the deceased, as such, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of notional income, the income of the deceased should be considered @ Rs. 3000/- per month. The Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of the said income for personal expenses of the deceased, hence, the notional income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 24,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed as Rs. 4,32,000/-. The Tribunal, however, added 10% to the said compensation for loss of estate i.e. Rs. 43,200/-, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium, so the total compensation assessed by the Tribunal to which the appellants were found entitled is Rs.4,82,200/-. However, the Tribunal held that since the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No. 1 and all the documents pertaining to the truck were valid and the truck was driven by the driver having a valid licence, as such, the liability to pay the said compensation was fasten upon Opposite Party No. 1 along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum. The claimants-appellants aggrieved by the said compensation have come up before this Court in appeal. 4. We have heard Shri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Tranjeet Singh Makkar, learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company and perused the record. However, in spire of sufficient service upon Opposite Party No. 2, none has appeared on behalf of owner of the truck. 5. 4. We have heard Shri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Tranjeet Singh Makkar, learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company and perused the record. However, in spire of sufficient service upon Opposite Party No. 2, none has appeared on behalf of owner of the truck. 5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal without assigning any reason has ignored the testimony of PW.1 Mohd. Shafeeq and PW.3- Shabnam, who had categorically stated in their statement that the deceased was running a Barber Shop, even PW.1 was a co-worker, who was also working with the deceased had clearly narrated that the deceased was running Barber Shop. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income. It is further stated that in the recent judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even an unskilled labour can earn a higher income than the income assessed by the Tribunal in the present case. There is no need for production of any income certificate in each and every case. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has cited a case law; Ramchandrarappa v. Manager Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under: "13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs. 4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bonafide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from Rs.4500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4500/-." 6. This apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has further cited a case law Syed Sadiq and others V. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under: "(10) Further, it is evident from the material evidence on record that the appellant/claimant was 24 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. It is also established on record that he was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in the future of self employed people, came up in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , wherein this Court has held as under: "14. It is also established on record that he was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables. The issue regarding calculation of prospective increment of income in the future of self employed people, came up in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , wherein this Court has 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 have 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 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." Therefore, considering that the appellant/claimant was self employed and was 24 years of age, we hold that he is entitled to 50% increment in the future prospect of income based upon the principle laid down in the Santosh Devi. 7. 7. Recently, in a judgment dated 31st October, 2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering all the earlier judgments on the points has laid down following guidelines: "64. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a co-ordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another co-ordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 8. It is evident that the deceased was 26th years of age at the time of incident and if the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is applied in the present case, an addition of 40 % of the established income should be made as future prospect and loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. 9. From perusal of record it is evident that from the side of the petitioner oral evidences of PW.1, who was co-worker and PW.3 (claimant) were produced, which were unrebuttal. The Tribunal has though considered the statement of witnesses but has not given any cogent finding as to how it has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month. It is not disputed in this case that the deceased was doing a hair cutting business and to our view, deceased was a skilled worker and for skilled worker, assessing income of only Rs.3000/- per month appears to be too lesser and when a Barber doing hair cutting business and is running his family out of his skilled working, at least it requires Rs.200/- per day when the cost of living is too high, so to our view, the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the deceased only Rs.3000/- per month. 10. In the above facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month and if 1/3rd of the said amount is deducted for his personal expenses, net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,000/- per month and after adding 40 % of the said income for future prospect as observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., the said amount comes to Rs. 5,600/- per month (Rs.4000/- + Rs.1600/-). 5,600/- per month (Rs.4000/- + Rs.1600/-). Since age of the deceased was about 26 years at the time of accident, to our view, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18 in this case, so the total compensation to which the appellants are entitled comes as under: Monthly Income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/- 1/3rd amount of the said income Rs. 2,000/- After deduction of 1/3rd, monthly income (6000 - 2000) Rs. 4000/- 40% of the said income for future prospects Rs. 1600/- Total monthly income (4,000 + 1,600) Rs. 5,600/- Annual income = Rs. 5,600 X 12 Rs. 67,200/- Rs. 67,200/- multiply by 18 (multiplier) (67,200 X 18) Rs.12,09,600/- This apart, for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- and for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- shall also be payable to the appellants-claimants, hence, the total payable amount comes to : Rs.12,09,600/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15000/- = Rs. 12,79,600/-. 11. Accordingly, the first appeal from order is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the total amount for which the appellants-claimants are held to be entitled comes to Rs. 12,79,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till the actual payment. However, if any amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company in compliance of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the calculation of the interest shall be made accordingly. The total amount shall be distributed amongst the appellants as per the direction given by the Tribunal. 12. Appeal is partly allowed and award of the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.