The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the law prevalent at the time of the accident to award compensation, the consideration of future prospects of the deceased, and the provisions for loss of love and affection, loss to estate, and funeral expenses.

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. These five Appeals (MAC.APP.321/2004, MAC. APP.322/2004, MAC.APP.323/2004, MAC. APP.324/2004 and MAC. APP.325/2004) for enhancement of compensation arise out of a judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,16,552/-, Rs.3,12,832/-and Rs.4,35,000/-respectively was granted for the death of Dulari, Sushma Rani Arora, Sardar Mohan Singh, Pushpa @ Pushpender Kaur and Kaushalya Devi respectively. MAC. Appeals No.180/2005, 187/2005, 192/2005, 267/2005 and 182/2005 were preferred by the Respondent U.P. State Road Transport Corporation(UPSRTC) challenging the judgment on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver was not proved and that the compensation awarded was exorbitant and excessive. All the Appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 23.03.2007 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Respondent that an Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred against the

judgment dated 23.03.2007 was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

1. 2. Admittedly, all these Appeals were preferred before disposal of the Appeals by UPSRTC. It would have been appropriate to decide these Appeals along with the Appeals filed by UPSRTC. It appears that the pendency of these Appeals was not brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge. Nonetheless, it is my obligation now to dispose of the Appeals.

2. 3. Since Appeals filed by the UPSRTC have been dismissed, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. 4. Before coming to the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to extract the age of the deceased, the multiplier adopted, number of dependents, deductions made etc. in each of the Appeal.

4. 5. During the hearing of the Appeals, following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:

MAC APP. Suit No. Name of deceased Age of deceased Multiplier Deduction Dependents Award (in Rs.)

321/04 115/99 Dulari 37 16 1/3 Husband, 2 children 263064/-

322/04 116/99 Sushma Rani 45 13 1/3 5 Children 263064/-

323/04 120/99 Sardar Mohan Singh 49 13 1/3 3 Children 312832/-

325/04 117/99 Kaushalya Devi 57 8 1/2 3 Children 435000/-

(i) While awarding loss of dependency, future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration.

(ii) Deceased Dulari,Sushma Rani, Pushpa @ Pushpender Kaur and Kaushalya Devi were also rendering household services. No compensation was awarded towards loss of gratuitous services to the legal representatives.

(iii) Considering the number of dependents, deduction made towards personal and living expenses was on higher side.

1. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent (UPSRTC) argues that the compensation in these cases was awarded in the year 2004 as per the law applicable at the relevant time which was just and reasonable. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was pronounced only on 15.04.2009; it would not be applicable to these cases to award compensation.

7. It is true that Sarla Verma was decided on 15.04.2009, yet it was not made applicable prospectively. Any judgment of the Supreme Court would be binding on all the Courts on the day the matter is heard. Thus, the contentions raised on behalf of the UPSRTC is without any substance. The Appeals shall be decided as per the law prevalent on the date of the decision.

MAC. APP. 321/2004

2. 8. This Appeal relates to the death of Dulari. As per the postmortem report, she was aged 38 years. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-per month by pursuing the job of stitching and knitting. The Appellants who are the husband and two sons of the deceased were unable to prove the deceased’s occupation and her income by any cogent evidence. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of an unskilled worker, deducted 1/3rd towards person