The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of legal principles related to the treatment of future prospects for 'self-employed' individuals and the determination of the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

R.K. Gauba, J.

1. The insurance company is in appeal primarily questioning the quantum of compensation awarded on the petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) presented by the first and second respondents on 08.10.2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“the tribunal”), registered as case No. 422/2014, by judgment dated 12.05.2014 granting Rs. 13,64,784/- on account of death of Charan Singh in motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 10.15 p.m. on 09.09.2013 near Gopal Pur Red Light on outer ring road, Timar Pur, Delhi involving collision between his motorcycle and truck bearing registration No. PB 10BM 4015 (the offending vehicle).

2. The deceased was unmarried, aged 26 years old, on the date of accident. Concededly, the claimant’s parents were unable to muster proof of his income. The tribunal assumed his income notionally at Rs. 8,528/- on the basis of minimum wages payable for a non-matriculates at the relevant point of time, factored in the prospect of future increase in income, applied the multiplier of 17 to award the compensation for loss of dependency, adding Rs. 25,000/- each on account of loss of love and affection and funeral charges besides Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate.

3. The insurance company is aggrieved on the ground that the addition of future prospects in the case of a person described by the claimants themselves to be “self employed” was not correct, and in the teeth of law laid down by a bench of two Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009 ) 6 SCC 121, as affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.(2013) 9 SCC 65. The tribunal has instead followed the ruling in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 decided on 23.04.2012 which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.

4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was “self employed” or was working on a “fixed salary”. Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter-alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC166.

5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 Sunil Kumar vs. Pyar Mohd & Ors., this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are “self-employed” or engaged in gainful employment at a “fixed salary” is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the addition of the element of future prospects cannot be approved.

7. The insurance company is also aggrieved on the ground that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased was not correct. It is well settled that the multiplier has to be adopted according to the age of the deceased or of the surviving claimants whichever is high. [U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362