JUDGMENT :

1. The present appellants, who are the original claimants, have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 123/2001 vide judgment and award dated 06.09.2003. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant Nos.4 and 5, who are the parents of deceased Subhash, died and therefore, their names were deleted since the other dependents of deceased are already on record.

2. The brief faces giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

One Subhash Uttam Nagare on 21.04.2001 was returning to Mantha from Jalna on motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-21-E-6027 alongwith his friend Jagdish Rathi. However, at about 8.30 p.m. when they reached in front of Mahindra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd on Jalna to Mantha road, one S.T. bus bearing registration No. MH-20-D- 4557 came from opposite direction in high speed, which was being driven by present respondent No.2 Balaji, and gave dash to the motorcycle of deceased. The concerned police station i.e. Taluka Police Station, Jalna registered Crime No. I-78/2001 against respondent No.2 i.e. S.T. driver for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 336 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter on 15.05.2001 the present appellants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal and against their claim, the learned Tribunal, after considering the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,01,128/- inclusive of “NFL” amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the said quantum of compensation, the appellants – claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement only on the ground that the learned Tribunal committed mistake while granting such less amount of compensation by illegally deducting 50% amount from the salary of deceased towards pensionary benefits which were being received by the appellants – claimants.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants – claimants submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already settled that except the deduction towards income tax and professional tax, no other deductions are permissible while computing the amount of compensation and therefore, such deduction to the extent of 50% from the salary of deceased was therefore an error apparent on the part of the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the appellants are also entitled for future prospects and consortium amount as observed in the subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned Counsel for the appellants admitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal has already been satisfied. In support of his submission, he relied on the following judgments :

A) Anita Arun Memane vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar and others, reported in 2021(2) Mh.L.J. 396;

B) N. Sivammal and others vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and another, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 18;

C) Helen C. Rebello and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 674;

D) Bishansing Thakursing vs. Nasira Kadar Shaikh and others, reported in 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 68 and

E) Judgment of this court bench at Nagpur, in First Appeal No.1627 of 2008 (Smt. Snehalata Arunkumar Pandya and others vs. Premchand Abhyakumar Mishrikotkar and others) passed on 26/02/2022.

4. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and opposed the quantum of compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal applied wrong multiplier of “17” instead of “16” as the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accidental death.

5. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record alongwith impugned judgment. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the appellants.

6. It is significant to note that the age, inco