Judgment :

Leave granted.

2. Compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal set up under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), on an application under Section 166 of the Act.

3. In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others [AIR 2003 SC

674], it has been held by this Court that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just. It has also been held that the award must be reasonable. Some of the relevant parameters in that regard arise for consideration in this case.

4. Petitioners are the widow (Smt. Rajesh) and three minor children of late Bijender Singh-deceased victim. At the time of accident, the deceased was around 33 years. The fatal accident was on 05.10.2007. The deceased was working as clerk in a school under the education department in the State of Haryana. The salary certificate, Exhibit-P3, filed along with Claim Petition filed on 26.11.2007, showed that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,926/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 16 and further awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards all other conventional heads and the compensation was rounded off to Rs.8,96,500/-with interest @ 7.5% from the date of the filing of the petition. It was also held that 60% of the compensation awarded would go to the widow and the remaining 40% to be equally shared by the minor children and mother. The share of the minor children was directed to be deposited in their name in a nationalized bank till they attained majority.

5. Dissatisfied, the Claim Petitioners except the mother approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The mother was made a proforma respondent. High Court, following Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], modified the award holding that only 1/4th should have been deducted from the income. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded for loss of consortium in addition to Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal on other conventional heads and, thus, it was held that the total compensation would be Rs.10,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5%.

6. Still not satisfied, the widow and the children have approached this Court.

7. The expression 'just compensation' has been explained in Sarla Verma's case (supra), holding that the compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. 'Just Compensation' is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. After surveying almost all the previous decisions, the Court almost standardized the norms for the assessment of damages in Motor Accident Claims.

8. At paragraph 24, it has been held as follows: -

"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 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. (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 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 calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without p