G.P. Mittal, J. (Oral):

1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.5,38,560/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Sanjay, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 16.01.2008 at about 8:00 a.m.

2. The factum of negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. The same is otherwise sufficiently established from the testimony of PW-2 Arjun, who was an eye witness of the incident.

3. Twin contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant. It is urged that the multiplier ought to have been taken as per the age of the mother of the deceased and no addition towards future prospects ought to have been made as the deceased was working on fixed wages.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2 submits that the deceased was working as a mistri, marble fixer. Proprietor of M/s. Vijay Kumar was produced to prove the wages of the deceased but the Claims Tribunal declined to believe the same and awarded compensation on the basis of minimum wages. The learned counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2 urges that the multiplier of 18 was rightly taken based on the age of the deceased.

MULTIPLICANT

5. PW-1 Arjun testified that his uncle Sanjay was a skilled mistri/ marble fixer and was earning Rs.6500/- per month. This fact that the deceased Sanjay was working as a marble mistri was not disputed in cross-examination, although his earnings were disputed by giving a suggestion to Vijay owner of M/s. Vijay Kumar, Arya Nagar, Pahar Ganj testified that Sanjay was working as a marble fixer on daily wages. He was paid wages of Rs.220/- per day and he also proved his certificate Ex.PW-3/A. In cross-examination, the witness stated that at the time of accident, 6-7 persons were working under him. He admitted that he did not take the signatures of the deceased or other employees on any receipt or voucher.

6. It may be noted that Vijay Kumar was having small business and was dealing in polishing work of tiles and stones. Since it was not disputed that deceased Sanjay was working as a marble fixer, I will accept his wages to be Rs.220/- per day or Rs.6500/- per month.

7. In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Smt Lalta Devi & Ors, MAC.APP. 189/2014, decided on 12.01.2015, I had gone into the question whether increase of 30% or 50%, as the case may be, has to be given in the income of the persons earning fixed salary as future prospects. I have held that the judgment in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 shall be taken as a binding precedent. Paras 9 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi are extracted hereunder:-

“9. The learned counsel for the Claimants has referred to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to contend that the future prospects have to be added in all cases where a person is getting fixed wages or is a seasonal employee or is a student.

10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimants that the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 was extended in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 to hold that future prospects ought to be extended in all cases.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company refers to a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein while approving the ratio with regard to future prospects in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) and relying on General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr., 2003 (3) SCC 148, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“38. With regard to the ad