(Judgment of this Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.)

C.M.A.No.3273 of 2014 is preferred by M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem, challenging the compensation of Rs.25,61,000/-, awarded to legal representatives of the deceased, in M.C.O.P.No.549 of 2012, dated 31.10.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.

2. In C.M.A.No.723 of 2015, M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem, has challenged the award made in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2014, dated 10.09.2014, by which, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri, has awarded Rs.18,82,600/-with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation.

3. In C.M.A.No.2386 of 2015, the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai, has filed an appeal, with a delay of 20 days, challenging the award made in M.C.O.P.No.4193 of 2011, dated 22.08.2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd Court of Small Causes), Chennai, by which, compensation of Rs.16,10,000/-has been awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.

4. In all the appeals, the common issue, raised by the Insurance Company as well as the Transport Corporation, is that the Tribunals, while passing awards, as stated supra, have erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased, in each of the appeals and should not add up income, under the head, future prospects, for the purpose of computing compensation to be paid to the family of the deceased. Contentions have been raised that except in the case of salaried persons, where there is a permanent source of income, there should not be any addition, towards future prospects, for computing the loss of contribution to the bereaved family.

5. On the contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that considering the escalation in the price of essential commodities, fuel, electricity and other factors, affecting the living conditions, wages or salary or earning in the case of self-employed has increased, and hence, the Tribunals/Courts should add up income, under the head, future prospects, while computing compensation. On merits, in respect of each of the appeals, arguments have been advanced that there should be increase in the quantum of compensation.

6. Reference has also been made to the judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pushpa [SLP(C)No.8058 of 2014, dated 31.10.2013] and Shashikala v. Gangalakshmamma reported in 2015 (3) MLJ 373 (Decided on 13.03.2015), where a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court has sought for reference, in the matter of adding up a percentage of income, under the head, future prospects and based on the above reference, contentions have been made. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, future prospects have been considered in Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in 2015 (2) SCC 764 (decided on 22.04.2014) and therefore, there is no error, in cases, where, future prospects have been considered.

On the issue raised in the appeals, as to whether, the Tribunals can award compensation, by adding up certain percentage of income under the head, future prospects, we propose to dispose of the appeals, by a common order, besides considering each case, on its merits.

7. In C.M.A.No.723 of 2015, filed by M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem, it is the version of the respondents/claimants that in the accident, which occurred on 17.11.2012, Muthusamy, a 34 year old man, claimed to have owned a grocery shop, besides engaged in Agriculture, sustained grievous injuries. Initially, he was provided treatment in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and thereafter, referred to Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem. He was inpatient between 17.11.2012 and 23.11.2012. Despite intensive treatment, he died. Wife, aged 27 yea