Vineet Kothari, J.These 5 misc. appeals filed by the appellants/claimant are being disposed of by this common order arising out of different awards by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur vide judgment and award dated 02.08.2001 deciding various claim petitions. In the present misc. appeals, service upon the first respondent/driver was dispensed.

2. The appellants/claimants laid a claim before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, claiming compensation on account of unfortunate death of Sh. Udai Sigh, Sh. Dhanna, Sh. Uda and Sh. Lalu, and for the injuries suffered by the claimant/injured Sh. Mangoo, the details thereof is given herein below in the tabular form.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.1995 at about 08.00 PM deceased Udai Singh, Hari Singh along-with other labour companions were returning from village Kunthvas in a Mini Truck, having registration number RJ-27-G-1545, which when reached near Dabok Aerodome, a Truck No. DL-1-GA-3125, which was plied by its driver Tarshem Singh, third respondent herein, in a most rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and hit the mini truck/matador. In the said accident, seven persons who were travelling in the mini-truck died and some of them sustained injuries.

4. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that after the said judgment of the Tribunal which was rendered on 02.08.2001, there are two decisions of the Honble Apex Court, which call for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal taking into account the future prospects of increase in the salary/wages income, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. He drew the attention of the Court towards the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 regarding the issue of grant of future prospects of increase to the extent of 50% in salary/wages income of the deceased. He also relied upon a recent decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) ACJ 1428 : AIR 2012 SC 2185 : (2012) 4 SCALE 559 : (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) AIRSCW 2892 : (2012) 3 Supreme 197 in which the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was also considered. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

"11. We have considered the respective arguments. Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country in last five decades is somewhat precedent-centric, the judgments which have bearing on socio-economic conditions of the citizens and issues relating to compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents, those who are deprived of their land and similar matters needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast changing societal values, the effect of globalisation on the economy of the national and their impact on the life of the people.

14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Vermas 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. 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 changes 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 Vermas judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the case 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 victims of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."

5. In case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Honble Apex Court in para 24 held as under:--

"24...... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."

6. As far as applicability of the said Apex Courts decisions is concerned, learned counsel for the second respondent i.e. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. N.K. Mehta, is not in a position to controvert the same and, therefore, the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is not disputed and, therefore, to this extent, the instant appeals deserve to be allowed and the award appealed against deserve to be suitably modified. The matter deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal.

7. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the appeals filed by the appellants/claimants are liable to be disposed of and the all these claims petitions deserve to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-determining the amount of enhanced compensation in the light of aforesaid two judgments of Honble Apex Court, referred to supra on various aspects including future prospects of increase in the income either from salary or self-employed, as the case may be, and the learned Tribunal is expected to consider the said judgments and re-determine the amount of compensation. Since the accident in question had taken place way back on 18.08.1995, and in view of long lapse of time of about 20 years, the Tribunal is expected to re-determine the respective claims within a period of six months from today.

8. With these observations and directions, the present appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Tribunal forthwith.