The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper calculation of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the consideration of future prospects, personal expenses, and the use of the multiplier method.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original claimant who had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of Sushil Kumar in a motor accident. The said Sushil Kumar (for short ‘the deceased’) was the son of the original claimant Kalloo.

3. The accident took place on 6th May 1986 on Allahabad Pratapgarh Road. The deceased was knocked down by a truck insured by the respondent-insurance company. The age of the deceased was 16 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal accepted the case made out by the claimants that the deceased was working as a labourer while learning the skill of a mason. By taking his income at Rs.700-800 per month, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.72,000/- with interest.

4. In the appeal preferred by the present appellants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 85,000/-. The appellants are praying for further enhancement in this appeal.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence on record proves that the income of the deceased was at least Rs.40 per day. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that future prospects of increase in the earnings have been overlooked by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. He submitted that the income of the deceased ought to be taken at least Rs.15,000/-per year. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order by contending that the compensation granted by the High Court is reasonable.

6. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that the contention of the appellants that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning at least Rs. 40 per day was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the dependency was taken by the Tribunal only at the rate of Rs.250 per month. The High Court has not applied the multiplier method properly as it has awarded the lumpsum amount as compensation.

7. In our view, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.1,000 per month. In the light of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors, 2017(16) SCC 680, 40% will have to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income will have to be deducted on account of personal expenditure. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 16 years, the highest multiplier of 18 will have to be applied as approved in the case of Pranay Sethi. A sum of Rs.40,000/- will be payable on account of loss of consortium. Moreover, a sum of Rs.15,000/- each will have to be granted on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the appellants will be entitled to compensation under the following heads:

8. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. The appellants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,21,200/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount. The respondent shall ensure that the amount payable as per this judgment is deposited with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from today. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall pass appropr