the factors to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the injured was in Class 10th when the accident occurred. This means he must be in the age group of 14 to 15 years. The evidence also shows that the injured was studying in a convent school in English medium. He claims to have good academic distinction and he passed with first class in the past educational career. It is his claim that he had good prospects in education and he intended to become a Chartered Accountant. Such a claim appeared to be based on future improbabilities. Admittedly, the injured was a non-earning member when the accident occurred. In a similar instance, the Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in 2020(1) MACD(CS) 35 has taken the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident in the said case and 40% was added towards future prospects in career disagreeing with the fixation of Rs.15,000/- annual income as contained in the Second Schedule of the MV Act. In the said case, the injured was aged 12 years’ girl. The year of accident was 2007. The Apex Court fixed income as Rs.6,784/- including future prospects in wages while considering minimum wages prevailing then. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1990, the minimum wages must not be less than Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month and 40% shall be given towards future rise in the income of the injured. Considering these facts, this Court is inclined to adopt the income of the injured as Rs.2500/- per month, which includes monthly wages and future rise in the income. The annual incomes comes to Rs.30,000/- (2500 X 12=30,000). The appropriate multiplier in the present case should be 18, therefore, loss of future earnings comes to Rs.5,40,000/-.
