- (1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 07.05.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Azamgarh awarding a sum of Rs.7,03,500/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation on death of one Sunil Singh in an accident involving the bus of the appellant.
(2.) Sole ground pressed before us, during the course of argument, is that Tribunal has wrongly awarded future prospect, even though the deceased was in private employment working on fixed wages and the claimants failed to establish his regular monthly salary. It is further submitted that the question of grant of future prospect to self-employed or person working on fixed wages, has been referred for adjudication to a larger Bench in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pushpa, S.L.P. (C) No. 16735 of 2014 vide order dated 2nd July, 2014.
(3.) The question of grant of future prospect, in cases, where the deceased was self-employed or was drawing a fixed salary, has been drawing the attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of addition of income of future prospect, in paragraph 24 of the reports observed that where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the Courts would only take annual income at the time of death and the departure therefrom shall be made only in rare and exceptional cases including special circumstances. Subsequently, in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 421, referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "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 naive 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." ;