JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. By way of the captioned appeals, the respective appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 31.12.2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal) passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.278 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the claim petition”) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed and the opponents have been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.29,84,600/- less principal amount of No Fault Liability together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 2. Since the challenge in both the captioned appeals is to the judgment dated 31.12.2011, with the consent of both the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 3. First Appeal no.1955 of 2012 has been preferred by the defendant-insurance company challenging the impugned judgment, mainly, on the ground that the tribunal has erroneously accepted the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.21,725/- at the time of the accident. Besides, the multiplier adopted is 17 instead of 16. While, First Appeal no. 2651 of 2012 is preferred by the claimants on the ground that the learned Judge ought to have given prospective rise of 50%. Being aggrieved, the defendant-insurance company and the claimants have preferred the respective captioned appeals. 4. Mr.Premal Rachhh, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants submitted that the accident took place in the month of March, 2008 and at the time of accident, it is undisputed that the deceased was serving as teacher in Modpar Government School and was receiving a salary of Rs.12,714/-.In the evidence Exh.39, categorical reference is made of introduction of 6 th Pay Commission on 01.04.2009 and its implementation with effect from 01.01.2006 and upon implementation, the salary of the deceased was revised to Rs.21,725/- in the month of July, 2008. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/-, is clearly coming out from the evidence of the Education Inspector Exh.39 who, is a government officer and hence, there was no reason available not to consider the said evidence. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/-, is clearly coming out from the evidence of the Education Inspector Exh.39 who, is a government officer and hence, there was no reason available not to consider the said evidence. It is further submitted that the deceased being a permanent employee, would have received the revision of pay and the rise in his income and hence, 50% prospective rise ought to have been allowed and to that limited extent, the tribunal has committed an error. 5. In the alternative, it is submitted that the deceased would have retired attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2031 and have received Rs.76,00,000/- together with gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- and pension of Rs.15,000/-. It is further submitted that as the deceased would have earned Rs.21,725/- monthly salary, then in that case the tribunal ought to have considered prospective future income by giving a rise of 50%. 5.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Sri. K.R.Madhusudhan vs. Administrative Officer reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 for the proposition that non-consideration of the future prospects of the deceased and upward revision in the salary, would be bad in law. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Ramrao Lala Borse v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 204 wherein also the Apex Court has considered the future prospects to an extent of 50%. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Pinkyben Wd/o Pravinkumar Jesangbhai Chaudhary vs. Somaji Ranchhodji Thakor reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC-247856 wherein the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 was considered in detail. This Court considering the evidence of Principal of the school therein, ruled that the nature of services being permanent in nature, 50% prospective rise in income is to be considered. It is further submitted that the said judgment was assailed and the Apex Court, has confirmed it by partly modifying in the case of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pinkyben & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No. 7192 of 2025. 5.2 In view of principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Ltd. vs. Pinkyben & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No. 7192 of 2025. 5.2 In view of principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), Mr.Rachh, learned Advocate has fairly conceded that considering the age of the deceased being 35 years, the correct multiplier would be 16 instead of multiplier of 17 considered by the tribunal. Hence, to that extent, it is urged that the award of the tribunal may be suitably modified. It is also submitted that the corresponding modification may be allowed under different heads i.e. total dependency loss and loss of consortium. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for the insurance company while inviting the attention to the pleadings of the claim petition, submitted that there is not a whisper regarding the pay revision which, the deceased would have received. Even in the affidavit filed Exh. 21, there is no reference of revision of pay. It is further submitted that though the accident was of the year 2008, in the year 2009, when the evidence was laid, the claimants could have averred about the revision of pay. The witness was examined only as per the pleadings available and in absence of any pleading, there could not have been further examination by the insurance company of the witnesses of the claimants. Since there was nothing on record regarding the revision of pay, the tribunal ought not to have considered the salary at Rs.21,725/-. It is further submitted that as on the date of accident in March, 2008, the salary slip of the deceased showed the monthly salary as Rs.12,714/- and hence, considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.21,725/-, was incorrect. It is submitted that the tribunal also erred in awarding the multiplier, inasmuch as, for the age group of 30-35 years the correct multiplier would be 16 and not 17. 6.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Vibhor Fialok reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL SC 75604 for the proposition that disregarding the evidence available on record and allowing the evidence beyond the pleadings, would be improper. 6.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Vibhor Fialok reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL SC 75604 for the proposition that disregarding the evidence available on record and allowing the evidence beyond the pleadings, would be improper. It is submitted that assuming that the claimants were not aware about the revision of the pay in the year 2008, but in the year 2009 they were very much aware about the 6 th Pay Commission, despite which, there is no attempt put by them and hence, the tribunal could not have gone beyond the pleadings. 6.2 It is next submitted that for the assessment year 2008, the applicable rate of income tax was 10% of the slab of Rs.1,51,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. Considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,725/-, the total annual income would have been Rs.2,60,700/- and the income would have been taxed at the rate of 10%. Though the rise has been allowed but income tax was not deducted by the tribunal. It is further submitted that the total dependency loss has been incorrectly applied by the tribunal. 6.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jashuben & Ors. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 162 for the proposition that revision of pay scale after the death of the deceased, cannot be taken into consideration. The Apex Court has held and observed that only because salary was revised at a later point of time, the same by itself would not have been a factor which could have been taken into consideration for determining the amount of compensation. Considering the same, it is observed that the tribunal committed serious illegality in taking into consideration the subsequent development. It is therefore urged that the judgment of the tribunal be suitably modified. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the record and proceedings. 8. The accident took place on 28.03.2008, while deceased was standing near the road and succumbed to the injuries. Undisputably, the deceased was 35 years of age and was working as a teacher in Modhpur Government School run by the Panchayat. The claim petition was filed by the heirs of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with 18% interest. Pleading was to the effect that the deceased was working as teacher and was drawing salary of Rs.12,714/-. Undisputably, the deceased was 35 years of age and was working as a teacher in Modhpur Government School run by the Panchayat. The claim petition was filed by the heirs of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with 18% interest. Pleading was to the effect that the deceased was working as teacher and was drawing salary of Rs.12,714/-. In the affidavit of the claimant no. 1, it is reiterated that the deceased was a teacher and was earning a salary of Rs. 12,714/-. It is further claimed that if the deceased would have continued in service, there were all the possibilities of the deceased getting promotion to the post of Principal and would have drawn higher salary than receiving at the time of the accident. 9. The claimants have examined the Education Inspector at Exh.39 and in his evidence, the witness has made a reference of introduction of the 6 th Pay Commission on 01.04.2009 and its implementation with effect from 01.01.2006. As per the Pay Commission, in the month of July, 2008 the total salary of the deceased would have been Rs.21,725/-. It is further stated that the deceased would have retired on 30.09.2031, attaining the age of superannuation and by that time he would have received Rs.76,00,000/- with gratuity and pension for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Much emphasis is laid on the evidence Exh.40 i.e. salary slip to indicate that at the time of the accident, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.12,714/-. In his cross, the witness has accepted the fact that the salary slip has been officially issued. At the same time, he has stated that he is not an accountant and has not prepared the salary slip. He has conceded to the fact that he has no personal knowledge about the record; however, he has also stated that the figure mentioned is calculated by the clerk of the office and are not based on any assumption. He has emphasized that the employees working get the promotion as per the seniority. 10. Considering the record and the evidence, the tribunal has allowed the compensation of Rs.29,84,600/-. What weighed with the tribunal was that the deceased was serving as a teacher with the Modhpur Government School and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 12,714/- and after the implementation of the 6 th Pay Commission, the salary was revised to Rs.21,725/-. 10. Considering the record and the evidence, the tribunal has allowed the compensation of Rs.29,84,600/-. What weighed with the tribunal was that the deceased was serving as a teacher with the Modhpur Government School and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 12,714/- and after the implementation of the 6 th Pay Commission, the salary was revised to Rs.21,725/-. The tribunal was also of the opinion that on the basis of the revised pay, the pension, has been fixed and the claimants are receiving pension. Considering the 6 th Pay Commission and the pay revision, the tribunal has accepted the monthly salary of deceased at Rs. 21,725/-; however, the tribunal was of the confirmed opinion that the claimants have not adduced any material to substantiate that the deceased would have got promotion or would have been eligible for getting the promotion. Accordingly, the tribunal did not consider the prospective income of the deceased. 11. The tribunal has considered one-third of the income the deceased would have spent on himself and thus, considered the two-third income i.e. Rs.14,485/- of Rs. 21,725/- as total dependency loss. The learned Judge therefore allowed the compensation of Rs.29,84,600/- less the principal amount of No Fault Liability together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 12. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the learned Advocate for the claimant has conceded to the fact that instead of multiplier 17, multiplier 16 would apply and on the other hand, the learned Advocate for the insurance company has conceded to the fact that instead of one-third, one-fourth of the income is required to be deducted, which the deceased would have spent for his personal expenses. Therefore, this Court need not delve further on the aspects of multiplier and personal expenses. 13. Pertinently, the deceased was working as a teacher in the Modhpur Government School. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, in the month of March,2008, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.12,714/-. It is also not in dispute that the 6 th Pay Commission was introduced with effect from 01.01.2006, and accordingly, the salary of the deceased in the month of July, 2008 would have been Rs.21,725/-. The evidence Exh.39, could not be controverted. It is also not in dispute that the 6 th Pay Commission was introduced with effect from 01.01.2006, and accordingly, the salary of the deceased in the month of July, 2008 would have been Rs.21,725/-. The evidence Exh.39, could not be controverted. The issuance of the salary slip by the Taluka Panchayat could not be dislodged and the fact remains that the deceased was drawing a total salary of Rs.12,714/-. Therefore, the deceased had he been alive, would have started drawing salary of Rs.21,725/-. 14. Having said so, the issue now which arises for the consideration of the Court is whether the tribunal committed an error in not allowing the prospective income. The answer has to be in affirmative. It is by now well settled that to follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand, would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Pertinently, for the employee who holds permanent job, there is an inbuilt grant of annual increments which is an acceptable certainty. 15. At this stage, the relevant observations of this Court in the case of Pinkyben Wd/o Pravinkumar Jesangbhai Chaudhary vs.Somaji Ranchhodji Thakor (supra) are worth referring to. Paragraphs 7 to 9 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “7. Accepting the principle of standardization and appreciating the concept of prospective future rise in income with the benefit of increments and pay revision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has held as under: “When we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self- employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/ fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self- employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts. 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 aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts. 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. 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." 8. The evidence of the Principal of Vinay Vidalaya Mandir, Secondary School, Khoda reflects that on 11.03.2005, the deceased had joined the school on fixed salary of Rs.4,000/-, and the witness had stated that as per government rules and regulation on 11.03.2010, he was entitled for full salary, and as per their school records, had the deceased been alive and would have been performing the job as a teacher on 31.12.2023, he would have earned the salary of Rs.45,859/-. The witness had brought the school certificate on the letter pad, which was placed on record at Exh.34. In the cross-examination, the principal stated that he was not knowing the deceased personally and the details, which he had given were as per the record. The deceased had not served in his presence. He affirmed that the deceased - Pravinkumar, as per the Gujarat Government Rules, was on five years fixed pay of Rs.4,000/- as Vidhya Sahayak. A suggestion was put to the witness, that it could not be necessarily said, that he would have been made permanent, to that suggestion, the witness denied. The deceased had not served in his presence. He affirmed that the deceased - Pravinkumar, as per the Gujarat Government Rules, was on five years fixed pay of Rs.4,000/- as Vidhya Sahayak. A suggestion was put to the witness, that it could not be necessarily said, that he would have been made permanent, to that suggestion, the witness denied. The Rules concerning non-satisfactory performance and breach of condition would have subjected deceased to a procedure for termination of job had been referred to, but there was no question to the witness about any improper conduct of the deceased during the term of his service, nor was any evidence brought on record of any disciplinary action initiated against him. The law does not appreciate any assumption of probabilities, and, to prove that he would have been terminated from his job, requires cogent evidence on record. 9. The deceased was on a sanctioned post. Considering the circulars in relation to the job of the deceased and the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that had the deceased continued to have been in service, then he would have been regularized in his job and would have received the benefit of 7th Pay Commission, and according to the documentary evidence at Exh.34 supported by oral evidence of the School Principal, on 01.01.2016, after having received the benefit of 7th Pay Commission, would receive Rs.42,967/-. On 31.12.2017, would have received Rs.45,859/- as salary, is the evidence of the Principal. 9.1 The deposition was recorded on 20.02.2018, and the document, Exh.34, was executed on 25.01.2018, thus, accordingly as per the school record on 31.12.2017, the total salary of the deceased, as would have been assessed, has been considered as Rs.45,859/-. 9.2 At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years, and was on fixed salary, hence, being considered him in permanent job, 50% prospective rise in income has to be considered, as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), which would be considered as Rs.64,450.50 [rounded off Rs.64,451/-] per month. 9.3 Here, in this case, the dependents are four in number, after deducting 1/4th as personal expense as Rs.16,112/-, the monthly future loss would come to Rs.48,339/- (64,451 – 16,112). (supra), which would be considered as Rs.64,450.50 [rounded off Rs.64,451/-] per month. 9.3 Here, in this case, the dependents are four in number, after deducting 1/4th as personal expense as Rs.16,112/-, the monthly future loss would come to Rs.48,339/- (64,451 – 16,112). 9.4 Considering the age of the claimant as 26 years, as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the multiplier applicable would be 17 to the annual income; hence, the dependency loss would come to Rs.98,61,156/- (48,339 x 12 x 17). 9.5 Under the conventional heads, Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, which is just and proper." 16. In the case on hand, the tribunal did not allow the 50% prospective income by observing that the claimants failed to bring on record any material showing that the deceased was eligible for promotion as a Principal. It would be too much to expect the claimants at the nascent stage to prove the promotion to the post of Principal; however, the aspect of revision of pay in the salary of the deceased is not seriously disputed. Therefore, the tribunal was wrong in not allowing the prospective income to the deceased. The claimants would be entitled for the future prospective rise on Rs.21,725/-. 17. So far as the loss of estate, loss of consortium, the total dependency loss are concerned, there is no serious dispute. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the insurance company and the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be partly allowed by suitably modifying the impugned judgment and the claimants shall be entitled for the compensation as recalculated hereinbelow: Particulars Amount Monthly income at the time of accident 21,725/- Future prospective Rise 21,725 x 50%=10,826.5 21,725+10862.5= 32,587/- Deduction Personal expenses 1/4 Multiplier 16 Total Dependency Loss 24,440 x 12 x 16= 46,92,480/- Loss of Estate 18,150/- Funeral & Transportation Expenses 18,150/- Loss of Consortium 48,400 x 5 (dependents) =2,42,000/- Final amount 49,70,780/- Enhanced amount 19,86,180/- Interest Rate 7% 19. Pertinently, the claimants have sought for enhancement of Rs.15,00,000/- whereas the enhanced amount is to the tune of Rs. 19,86,180/-. Pertinently, the claimants have sought for enhancement of Rs.15,00,000/- whereas the enhanced amount is to the tune of Rs. 19,86,180/-. Therefore, while allowing the disbursement to the claimants, the tribunal shall deduct the court fees to be paid on the differential amount i.e. Rs.4,86,180/- (Rs.19,86,180 - Rs.15,00,000). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till it is deposited with the tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit the differential amount with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 20. The claimants are entitled for the compensation and the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, after due and proper verification. The amount lying in the fixed deposit as well as the differential amount may be disbursed to the claimants as per the direction of the tribunal. 21. Record & proceedings, if any received, be sent back to the concerned Court, forthwith.