MACApp. 83/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR The appellant is aggrieved by an award dated 3/8/2001 passed by the Motor Accide nt Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 233/98. The claimant is the mother of Dr. Bhabesh Talukdar who expired in an acc ident in Jalukbari, Guwahati. The deceased was about 29 years of age and was a J unior Resident in Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi. The certificate of pay received by the deceased which was exhibited as Exhibit-2 before the Tribunal is of some importance and it reads as follows:- OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT LOK NAYAK HOSPITAL:NEW DELHI-110002 No.F.31/Extn/LNH/E-I/98/750 Dated:- 25th May 1998 It is certified that Dr. Bhabesh Talukdar was working in this hospital a gainst the post of Jr. Resident (one year Non-PG) for the period of 89 days w.e. f. 16/12/1997 (it should be extended time to time) till regular candidate joins through TRC which ever is earlier. In the said period, he was entitled for Rs. 9 ,000/- per month plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules of Govt. of India. This issue as per request of his friend due to sad demise of Dr. Bhabesh Talukdar, Junior Resident of this hospital. (DR. PREETI MEHTA) ADDL. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Arun Deka, J/R (Ortho Deptt.) L.N.H. Delhi. On the basis of the pay of Rs. 9,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded a n amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- taking the multiplier to be 13 in view of the age of the deceased. To this, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded as funeral expenses. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that the future earn ings of the deceased was not taken into consideration. He refers to and relies u pon Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 particularly paragraph 24 thereof. He submits that the income of the deceased should be enhanced by 50% to cater for future earnings. He says that since this has not been done, the compensation is required to be revised u pwardly. Learned counsel for the respondents has also made a reference to the sam e paragraph and his contention is that the increase in salary towards future ear nings of the deceased can be considered if the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age. In the present case, the deceased was below 40 years but had no permanent job. It is, therefore, submitted that paragraph 24 would no t be applicable. Having gone through Exhibit-2, it appears to me on the facts of this case that t he certificate of pay makes it quite clear that there was a very good possibilit y of the services of the deceased being extended from time to time beyond the pe riod of 89 days. In fact, there was a possibility that the deceased could have b een regularly appointed through the TRC. That apart, the deceased was a doctor a nd, therefore, the prospects of future earnings cannot be ignored at all. Since no decision has been cited by learned counsel for the parties on the perce ntage addition in the case of temporary employment, I am of the view that it wil l be appropriate if as a rule of thumb an addition of 25% is added to the actual salary drawn by the deceased to take care of his future prospects. This is only because of the language used in Exhibit-2 which is a certificate indicating the pay of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the claimant is p artly accepted and instead of adding 50%, I make an addition of 25% of the salar y of the deceased towards future earnings for the purposes of loss of dependency . The second contention of learned counsel is that the Tribunal has not awarded an y amount towards mental shock that the claimant suffered due to the accidental d eath of her son. He says that some amount should be awarded on this account. In view of the decision in Sarla Verma that would not be possible. Accepting the submission of learned counsel for the claimant would amount to circumventing th e law laid down in para 19 of the aforesaid decision. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering and hardship to the legal hairs of the deceased. If I were to award anything to wards mental shock, it would amount to an attempt at by-passing the decision of the Supreme Court which I do not think is permissible. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the claimant that an amount should be awarded towards mental shock. If this amount is accepted, various other heads can be created. The Supreme Cour t is seeking to plug these very heads in Sarla Verma. The second contention of the claimant is rejected. The third contention is that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- towards funeral expenses is far too low. While it is not possible to say how much should be awarded towar ds funeral expenses, I am of the view that considering the nature of the acciden t and the age of the deceased and the relationship that the claimant had with th e deceased, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- should be awarded towards funeral expenses . The award is modified in terms of the above. The Insurance Company will make the balance amount together with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant within a p eriod of six weeks. Trial court records be sent back immediately.