The claimants are before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted in MVC No.1210 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III and Member, Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants who are none other than the wife and son of the deceased Jagannath Kamble, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on account of death of the deceased, who died in the road accident occurred on 26.03.2012 at about 5.30 a.m. while he was traveling in a Car bearing No.MH-09-BS-7978 belonging to respondent No.1. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased Jagannath Kamble was serving with MSEB, Kolhapur as Technician and was getting salary of Rs.30,000/-per month. He had bright future and also every likelihood of he getting promotion in his future service with MSEB and he would have got salary of Rs.50,000 to Rs.60,000/-per month. The respondents contested the case. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties has allowed the claim petition in part with costs awarding a compensation of Rs.23,45,000/-with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are in appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the appeal papers along with the original records.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the income determined by the Tribunal is on the lower side even though there is sufficient material on record to prove the income and future prospects of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has not added future prospects while determining the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also very meager. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation under all heads by allowing this appeal.

5. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer inter-alia contends that the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the income of the deceased for the entire multiplier of 11. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have adopted split multiplier to arrive at compensation towards loss of dependency. He also submits that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he would have retired at the age of 60 years and after retirement his income would come down by 50%.

6. The factum of the accident resulting in death of the deceased, age and occupation are not in dispute. To appreciate the contention of the claimants with regard to future prospects, it is essential to refer to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 for the purpose of the present case, wherein it has held at para 61 of the judgment as under:

“ 61. xxx xxx xxx

i. xxx xxx

ii. xxx xxx

iii. xxx xxx

iv. In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 percent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25 percent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 percent where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

v. xxx xxx

vi. xxx xxx

vii. xxx xxx

viii. Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10 percent in every three years.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Taking into consideration the principles laid down in the above decision, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 15% to the actual salary of the deceased tow