JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3/claimants. Mr. Y. Ali appears for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2, who is the father of the deceased, has since expired. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the respondent no. 1, who was a labourer in a wholesale vegetable shop, was knocked down by a Tractor bearing Registration No. AS-15-C-2234 on 11.03.2012. The appellant's husband was rushed to hospital and he died on 05.04.2012 at the age of 24 years. 3. The claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 3 thereafter filed a claim- petition which was registered as MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012. The appellant submitted their written statement before the learned Tribunal. Only the claimant and an eye-witness gave their evidence before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal thereafter passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2016 in MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012, by holding that the deceased died due to the injury sustained by the deceased, on being hit by the tractor, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Tractor driver. The learned Tribunal also applied the multiplier of 18 while computing the compensation awarded and took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 12,14,659/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realisation. 4. Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, inasmuch as, the PW No. 2, who is the alleged eye-witness to the accident in question had not given his statement to the police, though he had adduced evidence in the learned Tribunal, stating that he had seen the Tractor knock down the deceased, who was walking along the side of the road. He submits that the evidence of PW No. 2 is unreliable as PW No. 2 does not find any mention in the police report made in respect of the accident. 5. He submits that the evidence of PW No. 2 is unreliable as PW No. 2 does not find any mention in the police report made in respect of the accident. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly given future prospect @ 50% of the income of the deceased, while the future prospect should have been 40% as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He also submits that the learned Tribunal should have awarded only Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium as per Pranay Sethi (supra). However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lakh as loss of consortium. He also submits that the multiplier to be applied should be 17 and not 18. 6. Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3/claimants submits that the deceased had died due to being hit by a vehicle is apparent, inasmuch as, the evidence adduced by the claimants clearly shows that the deceased had died due to his injuries. He also submits that the medical bills and documents submitted by the claimants with regard to injury and treatment of the deceased, which was exhibited, clearly proves the fact that the deceased died due to a vehicular accident. He thus submits that as the said documents are not denied by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot now take the stand that the deceased had not died due to a vehicular accident. 7. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The evidence of PW No. 2 is to the effect that the deceased had died due to a vehicular accident. The medical bills and documents which are related to the treatment of the deceased have been exhibited and the same had not been denied by the Insurance Company. The records of the learned Tribunal also show that the Tractor in question was seized by the police and that charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the Tractor in the criminal case. 8. On considering the evidence adduced, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the evidence of PW No. 2 (eyewitness), with regard to the accident, which caused the death of the deceased. 8. On considering the evidence adduced, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the evidence of PW No. 2 (eyewitness), with regard to the accident, which caused the death of the deceased. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there was no infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased died due to being hit by the Tractor. 9. In the case of Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Apex Court held that future prospects should be calculated @ 50%, if the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. The future prospects would be 30% if the age of the deceased was 40-50 years. With regard to other judgments passed by the Apex Court in relation to future prospects, paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma & Others v. DTC & Another (Supra) states as follows: "20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. 21. In Susamma Thomas this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs. 1032 per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs. 2000 as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses. 22. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1543 per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Ra. 3000. 22. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1543 per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Ra. 3000. This Court took the average of the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs. 2200 per month. 23. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, as against the actual salary income of Rs. 42,000 per annum (Rs. 3500 per month) at the time of the accident, this Court assumed the income as Rs. 45,000 per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age. 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 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 prospecs, 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 the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize 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 income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 10. In the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 10. In the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , the Apex Court has held that 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 victim of an accident, then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. In Santosh Devi (Supra), the accident occurred sometime in the year 1995. 11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saroj, (2009) 13 SCC 508 , which was decided on 12.05.2009, the Apex Court has allowed for a higher multiplier to be applied than the correct multiplier, in view of the fact that while determining the amount of compensation to be paid, the learned Tribunal and the High Court had not taken into consideration future prospects payable to the claimant for arriving at a just compensation. During the time the impugned Judgment dated 05.07.2012 was passed, the percentage of income applicable, for payment of future prospects was 30% as laid down in Santosh Devi (Supra). In the case of Bhartiben Nayabha Ker vs. Sidabha Pethaba Manke, (2018) 5 SCC 716 , the Apex Court awarded 25% towards future prospects. However, in Pranay Sethi, & Others (Supra), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects should be given, where the deceased was below 40 years and who was self employed or on a fixed salary. 12. In the case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018) 5 SCC 656 , decided on 06.04.2018, the Apex Court by following Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) awarded 40% of the income as future prospects. In the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Another vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 2 Tac 593 SC, a two Judges Bench of the Apex Court, in its Judgment dated 18.04.2018, has awarded 100% of the income of the deceased for future prospects. It has held at para 11-12 as follows:- "11. In the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Another vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 2 Tac 593 SC, a two Judges Bench of the Apex Court, in its Judgment dated 18.04.2018, has awarded 100% of the income of the deceased for future prospects. It has held at para 11-12 as follows:- "11. We have the benefit of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors, 2017 A.I.R S.C 5157 : 2017 (4) T.A.C 643. While examining the observations in Sarla Verma, supra, the Constitution Bench gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50 per cent to actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as in the present case. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a recent order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22134/2016 and other connected matters dated 22.11.2017 wherein while taking note of the views expressed by National Insurance Company Limited (supra), it has been observed that the percentage for calculating future rise in income is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level where the assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standard percentage. Learned Counsel, thus, submitted in the context of the evidence led in the present case that the two certificates dated 16thOctober,1998 and 8th July,2005 were proved in terms whereof the deceased's future prospects would have entitled her to a gross salary in the range of Rs. 14,000/- - Rs. 17,000/- per month. No doubt the second certificate, but then that would be a more realistic estimate of what a person holding that post would be earning at that stage of time. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the Insurance Company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case. As noticed above, the standardized percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led. 12. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the Insurance Company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case. As noticed above, the standardized percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led. 12. We are, thus, of the view that looking into the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and the legal position, the Tribunal was justified in giving a 100 per cent increase and taking the future prospects at Rs. 12,000/- per month. 13. The various judgments of the Apex Court, as shown in the preceding paragraphs shows that future prospects have been given by taking different percentages of the income and that there is no fixed percentage being applied by the Apex Court. However, as the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra) has fixed the future prospects of a deceased at 40%, if he was self-employed and below 40 years of age, this Court is of the view that the appellant should be awarded future prospects @ 40% of the income that the deceased was receiving at the time of his death, as the deceased was a 24 year labourer. 14. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the MACT No. 2, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012 suffers from no infirmity, except in so far as it relates to payment of future prospect @ 50%, which should be 40% and payment of compensation under conventional heads as provided in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The multiplier of 17, and not 18 should be applied as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Accordingly, the compensation payable to the respondent-claimant nos. 1 to 3/claimants will be as follows: 1. Total Annual Income Rs. 4,000 Rs. 4000 x 12= Rs. 48,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 48,000 x 40 100 Rs. 19,200/- 3. Compensation Amount less 1/ Rs. 67,200 x 17 x 2 3 Rs. 7,61,600/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,15,659/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 10,47,259/- 15. XXX XXX XXX 16. Accordingly, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay to the Claimant nos. 19,200/- 3. Compensation Amount less 1/ Rs. 67,200 x 17 x 2 3 Rs. 7,61,600/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,15,659/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 10,47,259/- 15. XXX XXX XXX 16. Accordingly, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay to the Claimant nos. 1 and 3, the total compensation amount of Rs. 10,47,259/-, by depositing the said amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim-petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation amount awarded, Rs. 3 lakhs is awarded to the respondent no. 3, who is the mother of the deceased. The balance amount will be released to the respondent no. 1 /widow of the deceased. 17. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 22.03.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 1020 of 2012 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 18. Send back the LCR. 19. The appellant/Insurance Company is allowed to take back the statutory deposit from the Registry of this Court.