The court's decision was influenced by legal principles established in relevant cases, particularly in determining future prospects and non-pecuniary benefits.

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 07.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,74,744/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2009 at about 6.45 AM, a Bus bearing No. HP 68 0946 was going from Uttar Kashi towards Gangotari in which deceased Ishwar Chand alongwith his friends and several other passengers were travelling. All of a sudden, the bus fell down in the Bhagirathi River while passing through Gehrang at Bhatwadi Gangotari State Highway. In the said bus, there were 63 passengers. Out of which 31 persons were killed, 13 persons were injured and 19 persons were missing. Name of deceased Ishwar Chand was also in the list of missing persons.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that though there was no funeral ceremony, but the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses.

4. However, the deceased remained missing but in such eventuality, legal heirs of the deceased might have borne some expenses towards ‘chautha’ and ‘terahanvi’ ceremonies etc. Since there is no such evidence on record, therefore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants has conceded that claimants have no objection if Rs.25,000/- granted on account of funeral expenses be reduced from the compensation amount.

5. I order accordingly.

6. The second ground argued by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years. The respondents/claimants have failed to prove that deceased was in permanent employment, therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered his monthly income as Rs.3,934/- per month as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled person. Despite that, the learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that keeping in mind the dictum of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 6 SCC 421 , as was prevailing at that time, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects instead of 50%.

8. On the issue of future prospects, the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, has held as under:-

“11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.”

12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.

9. This Court has followed the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (supra) in the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.’, decided on 30.09.2013.

10. Therefore, keeping in view the