R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 20th January 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Small Causes Court Judge) Chennai in M.C.O.P. 4720 of 2007. The Cross objection has been filed by the claimant seeking an enhancement. The enhancement sought now, was already claimed before the Tribunal at the time of Arguments.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their rank in the original petition.

3. Both the parties are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. In short, the 2nd respondent is seeking a reduction and the claimant is seeking an enhancement. The negligence and validity of insurance policy are not in dispute.

4. The claimant was on his way to Chennai in the Scorpio car of the 1st respondent when the accident occurred on 24.06.2007 at about 14.30 Hrs. The claimant, who was just 21 at that time, suffered grievous injuries to his spinal cord paralyzing his movement perpetually. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal fixed the salary of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,50,000/- with costs and 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved partly, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 10,50,000/-. At the time of Admission, the claimant has filed the cross objection, seeking enhancement to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

5. Heard both sides. The records were called for from the Tribunal and examined.

6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has questioned the fixation of salary at Rs. 10,000/-. Per contra the counsel for the claimant has contended that considering the future prospects, the salary ought to have been fixed at Rs. 10,500/- per month and relied upon the Judgments reported in The Managing Director, T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Ajay Marar, 2010 (2) Tnmac 167 (DB) : LNIND 2010 MAD 3446 : (2010) 8 MLJ 322. And Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandra, 2013 (2) Tnmac 105 (DB) : LNIND 2013 MAD 1274 : 2013 (5) MLJ 257.

7. Exhibit P25, which is the salary certificate along with series of Vouchers, reflects payment of salary to the claimant from the date of employment. The customer service reports, reflecting that the claimant was, in fact, employed as a Service Engineer, were marked as Exhibit P26 Series. PW4, the Managing Director has deposed that had the claimant not met with the accident, his salary would have been Rs. 11,000/-. However, in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma's and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : LNIND 2009 SC 866 : (2009) 4 MLJ 997. Case reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), the Apex Court has held that the claimant would be entitled to 50% addition on salary towards future prospects only in cases where the victim was in a permanent job. However, the Apex Court, in the judgment reported in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2185 : (2012) 6 SCC 421: LNIND 2012 SC 1137 : (2012) 6 MLJ 395 SC. has varied slightly from the findings in Sarala Varmas case with regard to future prospects and held as follows:-

"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarala Verma's and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : LNIND 2009 SC 866 : (2009) 4 MLJ 997. case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary with