The importance of adding 50% to the income of the deceased for future prospects and the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's age and the claimants' dependency.

These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since both the petitions arise out of one award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal).

2. The claimants, Budhu Laxmi Debbarma and Pradip Kumar Debbarma have filed the claim petition alleging that their son Pintu Debbarma, who was about 20 years old, died as a result of injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. The allegations are that the deceased after performing his duties was returning from Jwalchera towards Battalion Head Quarters at Lalcherra by the vehicle owned by the State. This vehicle met with an accident and the claimants alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligence driving of the deceased. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,345/-, deducted Rs.140/- on account of professional tax and taking the balance amount of Rs.10,205/- added 50% towards the future prospects of the deceased and therefore, took the monthly salary at Rs.15,307.50/-. Income for 13 months was taken because it was proved that in the Tripura Police an employee is paid for 13 months instead of 12 and, therefore, the yearly income was taken at Rs.1,98,998/-. 50% was deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 14 was applied taking into consideration the age of the parents and compensation was assessed at Rs.13,92,986/-. In addition thereto, Rs.2000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and a total compensation of Rs.13,94,986/- was awarded.

3. One appeal has been filed by the claimants. In this petition the main grievance is that the multiplier would be 18 and not 14 because if 50% is being deducted the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. It is also urged that the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on the lower side and that no amount whatsoever has been awarded for loss of love and affection of the son. On the other hand, the State has also filed an appeal in which it is alleged that the income has wrongly been taken at Rs.10,345/- per month because, in fact, the income was only Rs.6,533/- per month.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is indeed unfortunate that the State should file an appeal taking a totally false stand. It may be true that as per the last pay certificate the salary of the deceased was Rs.6,533/- per month. This salary was payable for the month of June, 2007. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that on and w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 due to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission there was revision of salary and due to revision of salary the Commandant of the 8th Battalion, T.S.R.(I.R-III) issued a certificate stating that on revision the salary of the deceased would have been Rs.10,345/- per month and Rs.140/- would have to be deducted for professional tax. It is indeed shocking that the State should come up with a false plea with regard to salary. Any party to a litigation has a right to challenge the order passed against it by any Court. When the State is a litigant, it is expected that the State shall be a fair litigant. The State is expected to come to Court with clean hands. It was not difficult for the State to tell this Court that on revision the salary would have been an exact amount. Instead of doing that the State has chosen to rely upon the last pay certificate which is meaningless because the last pay certificate after revision of the pay scales would have been totally different.

5. The second stand of the argument on behalf of the State is that future prospects cannot be taken into consideration. The learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,[AIR 2009 SC 3104]. Not only in this judgment but in various judgments thereafter, the Apex Court has repeatedly held that 50% should be added to th