The addition on account of future prospects principle will apply to a claim case arising out of death or injury of a self-employed victim, and the deduction for personal and living expenses should be 50% in the absence of evidence showing the victim's actual contribution to the family.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.

1. The claimants in MACC No. 569 of 2005 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the award dated February 28, 2007. They are questioning the adequacy of the compensation.

2. The appellants are the parents of one Prakash Kumar Mishra. Claiming fault liability compensation they filed an application before the claims tribunal under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on July 29, 2005.

3. The appellants' case was this. A motor vehicle accident killed Prakash on October 22, 2004. The accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of two vehicles:- No.WB-11A-5357 (a bus) and No.WB-02Q-3597 (a Tata Sumo). Prakash was travelling in the Sumo. He was 32 and self-employed. He used to earn Rs. 12,000 per month. The bus was covered by a valid policy issued by the insurance company. The owners of the bus and the insurance company became liable to pay Rs. 16 lakh with interest and costs.

4. The insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement. It denied and disputed the correctness of all material facts. The owners of the offending vehicle chose not to contest the case. In proof of the case the first appellant testified as PW1 and an eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW2. The appellants exhibited copies of FIR, charge-sheet, seizure list, postmortem report, the victim's income tax return for the assessment year 2003-2004, secondary examination admit card, electrical engineering diploma certificate, electrical supervisor's certificate of competency and pan card.

5. The claims tribunal held as follows:-

The appellants proved that the accident happened on October 22, 2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and that in the accident Prakash was killed. The income tax return proved that at the date of his death Prakash, a self-employed person, used to earn on an average Rs. 1.2 lakh p.a. At that date his mother was 59. Hence multiplier 8 would apply. One-third should be deducted towards personal and living expenses and two-thirds on the grounds that PW1 was getting Rs. 5,800 monthly pension. The appellants would get Rs. 2,000 funeral expenses. The insurance company would pay 5% p.a. interest if it failed to pay within the time mentioned in the award.

6. Accordingly, the claims tribunal calculated the compensation in the following manner:-

Rs. 1,20,000 (annual income) - Rs. 40,000 (towards personal and living expenses) = Rs. 80,000 W 8 (multiplier) = Rs. 6,40,000 - Rs. 4,26,667 = Rs. 2,13,330 rounded up to Rs. 2,13,400 + Rs. 2,000 (funeral expenses) = Rs. 2,15,400.

7. Mr. Banik appearing for the appellants has argued as follows. The claims tribunal could not deduct any amount citing monthly pension received by the first appellant. The deduction could not be more than 50% of bachelor Prakash's determined annual income. The appellants are also entitled to future prospects and 50% of the income should be added on this account. The claims tribunal ought to have chosen the multiplier 9 following Sarala Verma table and granted interest from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

8. Mr. Alam appearing for the insurance company has been helped by Mr. Das. His submissions are as follows. Personal and living expenses could not be more than 50%. The claims tribunal determined income on the basis of gross income, not net. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court no amount on account of future prospects can be added to the income of a victim who was a self-employed person. The multiplier was rightly chosen. Interest issue has already been decided by this court. The appellants were entitled to interest.

9. Prakash's income-tax return (Ex8) proved that during the year 2003-2004 his gross income was Rs. 1,37,845, tax payable on income was Rs. 14,256 and net income after payment of tax was Rs. 1,26,284. Prakash was a self-employed person. The claims tribunal held that it would be appropriate to