The inclusion of prospective income increases the compensation amount, emphasizing the need for future salary revision when calculating loss of dependency in fatal accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. By way of the captioned appeals, the respective appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 31.12.2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal) passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.278 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the claim petition”) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is allowed and the opponents have been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.29,84,600/- less principal amount of No Fault Liability together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

2. Since the challenge in both the captioned appeals is to the judgment dated 31.12.2011, with the consent of both the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

3. First Appeal no.1955 of 2012 has been preferred by the defendant-insurance company challenging the impugned judgment, mainly, on the ground that the tribunal has erroneously accepted the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.21,725/- at the time of the accident. Besides, the multiplier adopted is 17 instead of 16. While, First Appeal no. 2651 of 2012 is preferred by the claimants on the ground that the learned Judge ought to have given prospective rise of 50%. Being aggrieved, the defendant-insurance company and the claimants have preferred the respective captioned appeals.

4. Mr.Premal Rachhh, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants submitted that the accident took place in the month of March, 2008 and at the time of accident, it is undisputed that the deceased was serving as teacher in Modpar Government School and was receiving a salary of Rs.12,714/-.In the evidence Exh.39, categorical reference is made of introduction of 6^th Pay Commission on 01.04.2009 and its implementation with effect from 01.01.2006 and upon implementation, the salary of the deceased was revised to Rs.21,725/- in the month of July, 2008. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/-, is clearly coming out from the evidence of the Education Inspector Exh.39 who, is a government officer and hence, there was no reason available not to consider the said evidence. It is further submitted that the deceased being a permanent employee, would have received the revision of pay and the rise in his income and hence, 50% prospective rise ought to have been allowed and to that limited extent, the tribunal has committed an error.

5. In the alternative, it is submitted that the deceased would have retired attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2031 and have received Rs.76,00,000/- together with gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- and pension of Rs.15,000/-. It is further submitted that as the deceased would have earned Rs.21,725/- monthly salary, then in that case the tribunal ought to have considered prospective future income by giving a rise of 50%.

5.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Sri. K.R.Madhusudhan vs. Administrative Officer reported in (2011) 4 SCC 689 for the proposition that non-consideration of the future prospects of the deceased and upward revision in the salary, would be bad in law. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Ramrao Lala Borse v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 204 wherein also the Apex Court has considered the future prospects to an extent of 50%. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Pinkyben Wd/o Pravinkumar Jesangbhai Chaudhary vs. Somaji Ranchhodji Thakor reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC-247856 wherein the judgment of Na