JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.10.2016 passed by the MACT (Aux), Gondal in MACP No. 3 of 2009, the appellants – claimants have prayed for enhancement of the award amount on the ground that the deceased was aged about 18 years and at the time of his death, he was employed at Mahindra Gears and Transmission Pvt. Ltd. and was drawing salary of Rs.3,652/- per month. Considering the evidence of the Company, the ground has been raised that in future he would become entitle to salary of Rs.14,000/- per month and the prayer is made for 100% rise instead of 50% granted by the Tribunal. Mr. Sheth has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and Others vs. National Insurance Company and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 722 and Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Another vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 649 to contend that on the death at an early age with the prospect of promotion and potential earning capacity of the deceased, the Tribunal should have granted higher level than the standard percentage as laid down in the subsequent judgments and thus, Mr. Sheth submits that in consonance with the evidence of Rohitbhai Chauhan who was examined by the claimants, had very consistently stated that new employee appointed in place of the deceased was getting salary of Rs.14,000/- and on that basis, Mr. Sheth submits that 100% rise in income ought to have been granted in the present matter.

2. Referring to Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Mr. Sheth submits that if the salary of the deceased was considered when the family of the deceased is large and dependents of the deceased are the younger siblings and aged parents and therefore, Mr. Sheth submits that instead of one-half deduction as unmarried person, the Court ought to have deducted one-third as personal expenses and the contribution of the deceased to the family should have been considered as two-third.

3. Countering the arguments, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat has referred to the observations made by the Division Bench in First Appeal no. 2372 of 2014 dated 17.7.2018 to submit that the Division Bench has made elaborate observation to the submissions so made in that referred case of the deceased young man having exceptional academic qualification and has urged that he has the potential of higher earning. Mr. Sheth submits that while disallowing the contention raised, Division Bench has followed the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 to consider the scope and future rise in income. Mr. Shelat has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yashodharaben Vinubhai Patel vs. Dulabhai Bhikhabhai Mer and Others, 2016 (2) GLR 1221, wherein such contention of deviating from the standard adopted in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was put forward to consider 100% prospective rise in income.

4. Mr. Shelat has also referred to Paragraphs 11 and 24 in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) to contend that pay scale in force at the time of the accident is right standard to be adopted and the standard followed for adding the percentage of increase is required to be adopted for equity and therefore, Mr. Shelat submits that taking into consideration of the judgment in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), necessity to standardized the yardstick has been adopted and to maintain consistency.

5. In First Appeal no. 2372 of 2014, the Division Bench, while considering the question of granting future rise of income has observed in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 as under:

“5. We would first consider the question of granting future rise of income. As is well known, the two Judge Bench of Supreme C