1 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.107/2006 APPELLANTS:- 1. Smt. Sona Kunwar 2. Ms. Sunita 3. Mr. Renuka 4. Ms. Daksha 5. Narendra Singh 6. Smt. Shringar Kunwar 7. Puran Singh Chundawat V E R S U S RESPONDENTS:- 1. Shri Pratap Meena 2. Shri Jitendra Kumar 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ----- Date : 25.10.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta for the appellants. Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the respondents. ______ The respondents No.1 and 3 are served. For the present appeal, the respondent No.2 need not be served inasmuch as the liability of the respondent No.3 to indemnify the respondent No.2 is not in dispute and whether any modification is made in the award of compensation by enhancing the same by modification, the same is not going to affect the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the service of respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2 The respondents have urged in the first instance that special appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 100 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that since Division Bench of this Court in Vaibhav Kumar's case is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, this issue may be kept alive and some time may be granted. In the ordinary circumstances, we should accept this request but considering the merit of the appeal we find that there is no merit in the appeal and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the hearing pending and decide this appeal on merit. The claimants are dependents of the deceased Himat Singh, who had died as a result of motor accident which took place on 18th March, 2000. It is urged that at the time of death, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4,160/- per month and his age was about 40 years. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- while considering the monthly income by adjusting 25% of the income expendable on the personal expenses of the deceased. Usually that ratio is taken to be 33% and after doing so he has further increased the amount 3 by considering the future prospects. He also applied the multiplier of 15 for arriving at just figure for compensation to dependents. The learned counsel for the appellant primarily emphasized that the Tribunal has not taken a fair monthly income by increasing it with future prospects which ought to have been much more. However, we are of the opinion that while the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had taken the future prospects as well as the personal expenses, it has slightly deviated from normal parameters by reducing the monthly income by lesser percentage of personal expenses and thereafter adding amount by way of future prospects. In the totality of the circumstance, looking to the monthly income of the deceased the estimated compensation as projected in the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act and in attending circumstance, the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed on merit. No order as to costs. [ BHANWAROO KHAN ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/