The central legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of considering future advancement in career and increase in earning in determining compensation for a deceased individual involved in a motor accident.

V.K. Bali, J.-By this common order we propose to dispose of two connected D.B. Civil Special Appeals No. 5/1998 and 30/1998, as the same emanate from the same accident.

2. The bare minimum facts which need mention reveal that claimant-respondents on account of death of Shri S.N. Sharma in a Motor Accident which occurred on 07.01.1992, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased named above was husband of respondent No. 1 whereas the other respondents were also his relatives. The accident is said to have taken place in the morning of 07.01.1992. Shri Sharma, as per case set up, was going in Truck No. DEL 4646 alongwith his household goods towards Chaksu where he was posted. When the truck reached near Bhura Meena Ki Dhani, Bus No. RJ-20-0323 was coming from the opposite direction. Drivers of both the vehicles, were driving these vehicles, rashly, negligently and with excessive speed. Due to rash and negligent driving by both drivers, both the vehicles collided resulting into the death of Shri S.N. Sharma. In the claim petition filed by the respondents-herein, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/-as compensation. In an appeal filed by the claimants respondents the compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 14,70,000/-. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that two appellant Insurance Companies, who were saddled with the joint and several liability have filed two separate appeals. The relevant facts that have been proved and on which there are no arguments whatsoever would manifest that the deceased Mr. S.N. Sharma was 42 years at the time of the accident. He was Chief Cashier in the Bank and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,060,65.

3. On the proved facts, as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge while estimating the value of loss of dependency, the future advancement in career and increase in earning by taking into consideration the Judgment of G.M.K.S.R.T.C. vs. S. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), refixed the salary of deceased as Rs. 12,6417. It is relevant to mention here that refixation of salary was not arrived at on guess work but on the basis of statement made by Ram Singh, an employee of the Bank who appeared in the witness box before the learned Tribunal and stated that upon re-fixation of the pay of the deceased, his pay would have been Rs. 12,641.16 per month. The dependency of claimants was worked out after deducting one-third of the gross income at Rs. 8,000/ -per month and multiplier of 15 was applied. It is in the manner aforesaid that the learned Single Judge awarded compensation to the claimant-respondents at Rs. 14,70,000/-. Some amount towards compensation on account of loss of consortium and love of the widow of the deceased was also awarded.

4. Learned Counsel representing the appellants on the basis of Judgment of Supreme Court reported in Asha vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 448, have urged that the learned Single Judge was not justified in refixing the income of the deceased based upon future advancement in career and increase in earning, and, therefore, the dependency of the claimants respondents had to be worked out considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,065.65 only.

5. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and examining the records of the case, we, however, do not find any merit in the only contention of the learned Counsel, as noted above.

6. It appears to this Court that while deciding the case of Asha vs. United India Insurance Co. (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court did not refer to the judgement of G.M.K.S.R.T.C. vs. S. Susamma Thomas (Supra). Infact increase in earning on account of future advancement in career was not even a subject matter of discussion.

7. From the reading of the Judgment in Asha vs. United India Insurance Co. (Supra), it cannot be said that the Judgment of Supreme Court in G.M.K.S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas (Supra), has been dissented or even d