The main legal point established is the consideration of potential future earnings in determining just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. This appeal is filed by the claimants as they are aggrieved of the finding recorded at paragraph-11 & 12 reducing the compensation by 50%, from 21,24,336/-to `10,62,168/-holding both the driver of the offending vehicle and deceased negligent in answering the contention issue no.3 regarding contributory negligence. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned M.A.C.T. has not properly appreciated the undisputed fact that the deceased was a scientist and was aged about 45 years at the time of his death. The deceased had another fifteen years of long tenure of service. During that period, he would have got promotion. There would have been revision of pay scale at least for thrice. If he would have been alive, the salary must have been doubled. Therefore, determining the monthly salary of the deceased at `17,606/-is wrong.

2. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104. In paragraph-15 thereof principle has been laid down as to what could be the annual income to be taken for determining the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a person who is earning a stable salary out of his public employment. If that principle is applied, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, after deducting 1/3rd, out of ` 17,606/-, it would be ` 11,735/-which amount is to be added for the purpose of taking the monthly income to determine the annual income which will be the correct multiplier and it should be applied by the Tribunal. As the M.A.C.T. has applied only 12 as the multipliler, the same is contrary to the decision of Sarla Verma (supra) as well as to the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In said judgment a comparative table has been provided at paragraph-19 regarding the multiplier applied in different cases with reference to the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Choudhury submits that the award in so far as finding on the question of contriburoty negligence has been apportioned at 50%. The same being not correct, liable to set aside and the compensation on the correct salary structure is to be awarded on the basis of the multiplier applied in the earlier case. Therefore, the compensation would have been ` 40,12,920/-.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the finding on the contentious issue no.3 holding that there is negligence both on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased as the deceased was coming from the by-lane to the main road, he ought to have been more careful while taking left hand side curve to the main road. The said finding of the Tribunal is supported by the evidence of P.W.1 driver of the offending vehicle. He has stated that he had applied brake of the bus, for which it skidded for about 5 feet which goes to show that he was driving the bus in a low speed in the crucial juncture, the meeting point of the lane and the main road. He has further deposed that the deceased scooterist did not wear a helmet. If would have wore the helmet, even accident would have occurred, there would not have been severe head injury and the deceased scooterist would not have succumbed to the said injury. Therefore, Mr. Das submitted that the said finding is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

Mr. Das further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of the interested witness-P.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle including the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye witness to the accident though he is not a charge-sheeted witness. Further the Tribunal had not considered the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation and had not examined the report of the M.V.I. (Ext.3). He further submitted that there being negligence on the part of the