The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's employment status and future prospects of increase in income.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. By judgment dated 07.09.2011, the appellant insurance company has been called upon by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,50,771/- with interest at 7.5% per annum awarded on the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). The first two respondents herein (collectively, the claimants) had filed claim case registered as 899/2009. On the basis of findings returned that Kailash had died in motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 7 AM on 29.09.2009 at Ghewra Mor Chowk, Delhi on account of rash/negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.DL-1PB- 1226 (the offending vehicle) of ninth respondent (Delhi Transport Corporation) concededly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company, the liability was fastened.

2. The solitary ground on which the appeal is pressed is with regard to the computation of compensation for calculating the loss of dependency, to be specific to question the addition of the element of future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased.

3. The appeal was filed in 2011 and has remained pending over past several years. It came up for hearing on 18.08.2015 but was adjourned with liberty granted for brief synopsis of arguments to be submitted. On 26.08.2015, adjournment was taken for the brief written synopsis to be filed. On 15.10.2015, none appeared on behalf of the claimants and brief synopsis having not been filed, the matter was adjourned yet again. Today, when the matter is taken up, a proxy counsel appears on behalf of the counsel for the claimants only to seek yet another adjournment. In the given backdrop, this request cannot be granted.

4. Having heard the arguments it is found that the ground on which the appeal is pressed is well founded.

5. 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.

6. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), 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.

7. It is noted that the claimants were unable to prove on record the claim that he deceased was running the business of tent house and catering earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In this view, the tribunal adopted, and rightly so, the notional income of Rs. 3,953/- per month it being the rate of minimum wages payable during the relevant period.

8. Since the deceased was claimed to be self employed, in view of the prevalent view, the factor of prospects of future increase cannot be allowed. Thus, the loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Having regard to the number of dependents, the Tribunal deducted, and rightly so, 1/5th of the income towards personal and living expenses. In this view, the monthly loss of dependency is calculated as (3,953 x 4 ÷ 5) Rs. 3,162/-.

9. On the multiplier of 16, as correctly adopted by the Tribunal (having