1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 8th December, 2003, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in Claim Petition No. 755/1997 awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- only inclusive of no fault liability. The Tribunal also awarded payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded sum from the date of the application, till realization. The claim was made in the sum of Rs 6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs) before the Tribunal. After hearing the learned Advocate as well as Assistant Government Pleader representing the parties and after careful perusal of the evidence available on record at thread bare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- is just and proper?

My answer is in the emphatic negative as compensation awarded by the Tribunal need to be enhanced for following reasons:-

2. The finding regarding liability recorded by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The fact that young Chintaman, aged about 35 years died in road accident involving the motor vehicles Motor Cycle bearing registration no. MH-04-W-6135 and the Police Van registration no MH-12-F-5804 is not in dispute. It is not disputed that the Police Van bearing was owned by Respondent State(Respondent no. 1) as on the date of the motor vehicle accident in the present case. Thus question which is to be answered in this appeal is, as to what is quantum of just and fair compensation, which could have been awarded to the claimants/dependents of the young victim Chintaman, who died in the motor vehicle accident at the age of 35 years.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants made a grievance that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was utterly inadequate, as according to Mr Naik, the victim young Chintaman was only daily bread earner for the family serving in as Head Clerk in Soil Conservation Office, Wada, earning about Rs. 4326/- per month according to PW-1 Chitra, who deposed as claimant and PW-3 Shantaram, Assistant Superintendent in the same office where deceased had worked, who deposed before the Tribunal. Learned Advocate Mr.Naik for the appellants, therefore, contended with reference to ruling in SarlaVerma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 as also making reference to ruling in SantoshDevi V/s National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 421, to argue that even in cases of self-employed victims, increases in their income prospectively ought to be considered by the tribunal while granting reasonably just and adequate compensation.

4. According to learned Advocate Mr.Naik, there were parents of the victim as well as Widow and three minor children solely dependent on him. Thus, six members in the family were left behind by victim Chintaman who died in the accident at young age. Thus, it is contended that pre-revised salary amount of Rs 4326/- was income of the deceased Chintaman. His revised total Salary was Rs 5368/- with basic pay as Rs 4600/- His Salary was Rs 5368/- minus Tax of Rs 60/- = 5308/- plus also considering prospective increases in his income at 50% of Rs 5308/- = Rs.7962. Then considering six dependents of the victim, Tribunal ought to have considered his daily income after deduction of 1/4th towards his personal expenses =Rs5972/-. Taking the loss of dependency at Rs 5970/- per Month X 12 =71640/- Multiplier of 16' is applicable as indicated in SarlaVerma’s case. Thus Rs 11,46,240/- with interest at the rate of Rs 9% per annum apart from non-pecuniary damages at least in the sum of Rs.55,000/-(50,000/- loss of love and affection , consortium and Rs 5000/- toward funeral expenses and transport etc) would be sum of Rs 12,01,240/- as reasonable compensation. Learned AGP for the respondents who sought to support the impu