Sunil Ambwani, Bharat Bhushan, JJ. - (1.) We have heard Shri Lalji Chaudhary for the appellant.
(2.) The service of notice on the respondent is found to be sufficient vide report of the OSD (Lit.) dated 17.8.2012. No one has appeared to contest the matter on behalf of the respondents. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act arises out of an award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Temporary Ex-Cadre Post)-01, Fatehpur dated 2.2.2012 by which it allowed the Claim Petition No.163 of 2011, Sayeed Ahmad & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr. and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,12,000/- to be paid by Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.-defendant no.2. The Tribunal has directed the amount to be divided equally between father and mother of the deceased to be paid with 7% interest. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that after recording finding that the deceased was serving as Conductor/khalasi on Truck No.UP 78 BT 0105 and had died in the accident at about 6.00 p.m. on 10.4.2011, on account of driver suddenly starting the truck, after the deceased sent to get the receipt on the toll barrier, was trying to climb the truck. He had fallen down and was crushed under the wheels of the truck. The truck was validly insured by Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.- respondent no.2, the Tribunal has given a meager amount of compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has completely ignored the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court for determining the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal has failed to consider the ratio of the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 SCC (CR) 2 1002 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 , which has been further explained in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2012 (2) A.C.C.D. 973 : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 (SC) .
(3.) In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court while upholding the method and calculation of compensation on the notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month, if there was no definite proof of income, and upholding the adjustment of the multiplier, after considering Sussama Thomas, Triloki Chandra and Charlie's case observed that the Tribunal must consider the future prospects in respect of self-employed persons also, who are not serving in any permanent employment. Paragraph 14 of Santosh Devi's case are quoted as below:- "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's 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 have to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.";