The appropriate multiplier for compensation should be based on the age of the deceased, and addition to the notional income on account of future prospects can be made even in the case of a student, based on evidence and relevant legal principles.

1. Heard.

ADMIT.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the claimants, who are respondent nos.1 and 2 in this case.

3. Nobody appears for respondent nos.3 and 4, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, though duly served on final hearing.

4. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 23/12/2016 rendered in Claim Petition No. 96/2011, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati.

5. The Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “M.V. Act”) was partly allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. The Tribunal found that accident which occurred on 06/01/2011 on Amravati – Badnera road, in which, son of the respondent nos.1 and 2 died, was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, a Truck bearing registration no. MP-06-GA-1082. This Truck was, at the relevant time, driven by the respondent no.3, owned by the respondent no.4 and insured with the appellant. The Tribunal also found that in this accident, son of respondent nos.1 and 2, riding pillion, on Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-32-H-8016, was badly hit by the offending vehicle, which resulted in his instantaneous death. The Tribunal, considering the educational record of the deceased son, notionally computed income of the deceased to be at Rs.8,000/- per month, added to it 50% future prospects and applying the multiplier of ‘18’, as per the age of the deceased, which was 19 years, calculated the total loss of dependency. The Tribunal, before arriving at the figure of total loss of dependency, deducted 50% of the income from the amount of Rs.8,000/- on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal then proceeded to add further amounts on account of loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses and thus, granted total compensation of Rs.15,21,000/-, together with interest thereon at the rate of 7% per annum from 25/02/2011 till the realization of the amount by it’s impugned award. The appellant, being not satisfied with the same, is before this Court, in the present appeal.

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, compensation so granted, is on a very higher side. He submits that the multiplier should have been applied by considering the age of the parents and not of the deceased. He also submits that since deceased was not earning any income, the ratio of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, should not have been applied, and therefore, no advantage in the nature of addition on account of future prospects to the notional income of the deceased, should have been given to the respondent nos.1 and 2. This is, however, not accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, who submits that the impugned award is based upon the conclusion drawn from the evidence available on record and the applicable ratios of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, there is no need to make any interference with the impugned award.

7. I have gone through the impugned award as well as the record of the case. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is:

“Whether the compensation awarded in the instant case is just and proper?”

8. As far as the aspect of the application of appropriate multiplier is concerned, I do not think that there can be any dispute about the proposition that now it is fairly well settled that for determination of the appropriate multiplier, it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents which is relevant. This Court by considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naina Bapurao Bhamodkar and others, 2014(3) ALL MR 748, has held that, “The selection of the multiplier must be done by taking into consideration the age of the deceased and not of the age of the parents”. There is