- JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. 1. Claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No.877 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, by which Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,02,120/- on account of death. 2. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows: a) Father, mother and wife of the deceased preferred claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for death of husband of 3 rd claimant. The deceased was employed as electrician in private company and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. On 14.07.2011, after finishing his works, he proceeded to the shop of his father – 1 st claimant and thereafter, while returning home by motorcycle, he was hit by parcel lorry bearing No.AP 29U 0423 from behind, thereby, he succumbed on spot having sustained severe head injuries. - b) It is stated that 1 st respondent-driver of offending lorry drove vehicle in rash and negligent manner, causing accident. The deceased claimed to be aged 26 years as on the date of accident. The incident was reported to police and Crime No.136/11 was registered against driver of offending vehicle, after investigation, police laid charge sheet against him. c) Considering the earnings of deceased, claim was made for Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation. 1 st and 2 nd respondents who are driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. 3 rd respondent – Insurer filed written statement inter alia denying the manner in which the accident occurred and that the driver of vehicle was negligent and responsible for causing the accident, besides age and earnings and quantum of compensation were also disputed. d) In order to prove the case of claimants, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1, eyewitness as P.W.2 and H.R. Manager of the company in which deceased was working as P.W.3, and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X3. On behalf of respondent – Insurer, none were examined; however, Ex.B1 – Insurance Policy was marked. e) Based on the pleadings and evidence available on record, Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. On behalf of respondent – Insurer, none were examined; however, Ex.B1 – Insurance Policy was marked. e) Based on the pleadings and evidence available on record, Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 14.07.2011 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 29U 0423 by the 1 st respondent? 2. Whether 1 st respondent was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation? And if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 4. To what relief? f) 1 st and 2 nd issues were decided in favour of claimants by holding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligence of 1 st respondent driver, who hit the motorcycle from behind. In coming to such conclusion, Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W.2 – eyewitness and Exs.A1 to A5, which are FIR, Inquest Report, MVI Report and Post Mortem Certificate respectively. Though insurer had also taken stand that 1 st respondent did not have valid driving license, in the absence of any evidence forthcoming in that direction let in by Insurance Company, Tribunal rejected the same. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month, after deducting professional tax of Rs. 80/-, assessed monthly income as Rs. 7,920/-. 1/3 rd of the same has been deducted towards personal expenditure having regard to three dependents and assessed annual income as Rs. 63,360/-. Considering his age as 26 years, after applying multiplier of 17, total loss of dependency was assessed as Rs. 10,77,120/-. Besides, Tribunal also awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. - g) Assailing the same, present appeal is filed to the extent of not granting just and fair compensation. 4. Heard Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ravi Reja Talaseela, learned counsel, representing Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for 3 rd respondent Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly preferred present appeal aggrieved by the insufficient compensation awarded with respect to non-awarding of future prospects and amounts towards conventional heads. There is no challenge laid to the award by insurer. The Tribunal has rendered finding that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of driver of offending vehicle. - 6. There is no challenge laid to the award by insurer. The Tribunal has rendered finding that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of driver of offending vehicle. - 6. Now, present appeal concerns only with respect to whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and fair. The Tribunal has considered income of deceased as Rs. 8,000/- and after deducting professional tax, arrived at Rs. 7,920/-. The order clearly indicates that though Tribunal has considered aforesaid amount as monthly income and applied 1/3 rd of the same for deduction towards personal expenses, it has failed to add future prospects. The Tribunal has tried to justify non-inclusion of future prospects by reasoning that claimants failed to establish that deceased was an employee on fixed basis. This Court is of the opinion that said reasoning cannot be sustained, inasmuch as any employee cannot be static in course of his employment and that the wages or earnings would definitely escalate over a period of time. In the present case, deceased was aged 26 years, therefore, having regard to his length of service, definitely the earnings cannot become static @ Rs. 8000/- per month. - 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Pawaia and others v. Ashraf Ali and others , (2021) 17 SCC 148 , while dealing with similar issue, though it was relating to case of student pursuing MBBS Course, in respect of earnings held that it cannot be static and relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “13 . We see no reason why the aforesaid principle may not be applied, which apply to the salaried person and/or deceased self-employed and/or a fixed salaried deceased, to the deceased who was not serving and/or was not having any income at the time of accident/death. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not doing any job and/or self-employed at the time of accident/death, as observed herein above his income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the circumstances narrated hereinabove. Once such an amount is arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living would also affect such a person. 14. As observed by this Court in National Insurance Co. Once such an amount is arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living would also affect such a person. 14. As observed by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205, 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. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment and/or in case of a deceased who was on a fixed salary and/or self-employed would only get the benefit of future prospects and the legal representatives of the deceased who was not serving at the relevant time as he died at a young age and was studying, could not be entitled to the benefit of the future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. Because the price rise does affect them also and there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. 15. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant. As observed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 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. Therefore we are of the opinion that even in case of a deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income as held by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family background, etc. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 i.e. addition of 40% of the income determined on guesswork considering the educational qualification, family background, etc. where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.” 8. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% following the dictum laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , inasmuch as deceased was in private employment. The Tribunal has considered multiplier of 17, considering that deceased was in the age group of 26 to 30. Sustaining the same, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 88,704/- towards loss of dependency. - Conventional Heads: 9. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants/claimants' contention with regard to the grant of compensation towards conventional heads needs to be considered. The Tribunal has merely granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. As rightly contended, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) , the claimants will be entitled for conventional heads viz., Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. On the point of the conventional heads, as per the judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (supra), Magma National Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 11 SCC 780 , Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Rojalini Nayak and Others v. Ajit Sahoo and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 , this Court awards the following amounts under the conventional heads of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, as Rs. 48,400/- (per claimant), Rs. 18,150/- and Rs. 18,150/- respectively as was awarded in Rojalini’s Case (Supra). - 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as mentioned below: - S. No. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in rupees 1 Net Annual Income Rs. 7,920/- x 12 = Rs. 95,040/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 26 years) Rs. 38,016/- (i.e. 40% of the income) Total Income: Rs. 1,33,056/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/3rd) Rs. 7,920/- x 12 = Rs. 95,040/- 2 Future prospects (at the age of 26 years) Rs. 38,016/- (i.e. 40% of the income) Total Income: Rs. 1,33,056/- 3 Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e. 1/3rd) Rs. 44,352/- 4 Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs. 88,704/- 5 Multiplier of 17 for the age of 26 years 17 x Rs. 88,704/- = Rs. 15,07,968/- Conventional Heads: 6 (i) Loss of consortium (3 claimants) Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 3) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total Compensation Rs. 16,86,468/- (Rounded off to Rs. 16,86,470/- 11. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in the following terms: (i) Appellants/Claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 16,86,470/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. (ii) Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 16,86,470/-, the 3 rd claimant – wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 8,86,470/- and claimants 1 and 2 are entitled for Rs. 4,00,000/- each, who are the father and mother of the deceased. (iii) The respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, as aforesaid, with costs and interest, minus the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of one month before the Tribunal. (iv) The Tribunal shall proceed to pay the amount, in the aforesaid terms, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. (v) Entire costs in this case are awarded in favour of the 3 rd claimant before the Tribunal. - As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.