The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors. govern the calculation of compensation in motor accident claims.

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. The claimants-appellants have instituted the instant appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the award dated 21st October, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in claim petition No. 1058/2011 (1408/2007); Smt. Safedi Devi @ Safeli & Ors. v. Kajod & Ors. Considering the limited controversy, the matter was taken up for final adjudication, at this stage, with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that on 4th October, 2007, while Ramjilal Meena (deceased) was going from Jaipur to Isarda on his Motorcycle, while he was hit by a Maruti Alto Car, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into severe injuries and as a consequence Ramjilal Meena died on 5th October, 2007.

3. On the claim petition instituted by the claimants-appellants, the Tribunal made an award for a sum of Rs. 20,22,088/- (twenty lac twenty two thousand eighty eight). As against the loss of consortium an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) was allowed and for loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children an amount of Rs. 4,000/- (four thousand) was allowed. For the loss of love and affection to the surviving parent (mother), a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and as against funeral expenses an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Yunus Khan, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the appeal has vehemently argued that the Tribunal fell in gross error while not taking into consideration that the personal expenses which have to have been deducted to the extent of one fourth (1/4) and not one third (1/3), applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is further contended that the deceased was a young man of 36 years and it was quite probable that his income would have enhanced in view of future increments, and thus, Tribunal ought to have allowed 1.5 times enhancement of Rs. 15696/- (fifteen thousand six hundred ninety six) for the purpose of computation of just and proper compensation.

5. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal grossly erred while awarding compensation as against loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to minor children, loss of love and affection to the surviving parent (mother), which needs to be enhanced in view of the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a recent opinion in the case of Asha Verman & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors., 2015 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 182; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a consideration of earlier opinion in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), also allowed the element of future income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency. Referring to the opinion in the case of Kalpana Raj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2014 (5) Scale 479; the learned counsel would submit that the compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium needs to be enhanced.

6. Per contra, Mr. Rishi Pal Agarwal, appearing for the Insurance Corporation vehemently argued that the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), leaves no room for any doubt that the improbabilities of life cannot be lost sight of as well as the delay in decision on the claim petitions. The revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of compensation.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that 50% of the income would be considered for the purpose of future prospects in the case of government