G.P. Mittal, J.:--

1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 15,47,308/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 9 for the death of Mohan Lal, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 06.08.2011 at about 12:30 p.m. near Mangol Puri Railway Line Flyover, Mangol Puri, Delhi.

2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence with regard to deceased’s income, his income was taken as Rs. 6422/- per month on the basis of minimum wages and addition of 30% was made towards future prospects to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,62,308/-.

4. On awarding certain sums towards non-pecuniary damages, the overall compensation of Rs. 15,47,308/- was awarded to the Respondents No. 1 to 9 (the Claimants).

5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in the absence of any evidence with regard to good future prospects, no addition towards the same was permissible. It is also contended that once the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, award of compensation for loss of gratuitous services was not permissible. It is further urged that since the number of family members were 9 including 8 dependants, deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/5th instead of 1/10th taken by the Claims Tribunal.

6. The appeal must succeed on all three grounds.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

7. As far as future prospects are concerned, proposition of law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 that there will be addition of 50% and 30% towards future prospects when a victim is in settled employment having bright future prospects like government service in the age group of upto 40 years and above 40 years but less than 50 years respectively was affirmed by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65. The question of grant of future prospects was also dealt with by this Court at great length in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors., MAC APP No. 189/ 2014 decided on 12.01.2015 and it was held that the three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent. Paras 8 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi (supra) are extracted hereunder:

“8. It is no gainsaying that in appropriate cases some addition towards future prospects must be made in case of death or injury of a person pursuing a professional course. At the same time, it cannot be laid down as a uniform principle that every person pursuing professional course will have a bright future. There may be a student pursuing engineering from the reputed engineering colleges like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Regional Engineering College or any other reputed college. At the same time, a number of engineering Colleges have mushroomed where an engineering graduate may find it difficult to secure a job of an engineer. In the instant case, deceased Aditya, as stated earlier was a student of an unknown engineering college, i.e. Echelon Institute of Technology, Faridabad which is claimed to be affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The Claimants have placed on record result-cum-detailed marks card of First and Second Semester. It may be noted that the deceased had secured just ordinary marks in seven subjects and he had to re-appear in papers 1002 (Mathematical-I), 1006 (Foundation of Computer & Programming) and 1008 (Basics of Mechanical Engineering). Similarly, in the Second Semester the deceased was absent in one of the 12 papers and out of 11 subjects for which he had taken examination, he was to re-appear in four su