Compensation must incorporate future prospects and the correct multiplier based on the deceased's age, following established legal precedents for justice.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’] by the Original Claimants, who are the parents of Vishal Salve (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased’), who died in a Motor Vehicular Accident, for further enhancement.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : -

2.1. The Claimants filed the Claim Petition bearing No. 5 of 2010 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani [for short ‘the Tribunal’] under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Their Deceased son was working as the Cleaner on Tempo bearing No. MH-22/1707. On 14.03.2009, at about 01:30 am, Deceased was travelling in the aforesaid Tempo which was bring driven by its Driver from Parbhani to Osmanabad. On their way, Deceased asked the Driver to stop the Tempo for urine purpose. When the Deceased was alighting the said Tempo, the Driver lost his control over the Tempo and Deceased fell down and suffered injuries. The Deceased was hospitalized, and he succumbed to the injuries. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as Deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by working as a Cleaner and he was 20 years old at the time of accidental death, and they were dependent on him.

2.2. The Claim Petition was contested by Respondents by filing the Written Statements at Exhs. 25 and 27. They denied the contentions of the Claimants. The Insurance Company took a plea that the Driver was not holding the valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was pleaded by Respondent No. 1, who was the owner of the said Tempo that the Deceased fell down from the Tempo on his own negligence and it was the act of God. They contended that the Claim Petition be dismissed.

2.3. The learned Tribunal framed the issues below Exh. 28. The Mother of Victim filed her Evidence Affidavit below Exh. 36 and she was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. The police papers, copy of Insurance Certificate and other relevant documents were brought on record during the evidence. On appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal passed the Judgment and Award granting compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that the Appeal is preferred on the ground of Quantum. Though the evidence was led by the Claimants, the learned Tribunal considered the notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 4,500/-. The multiplier is applied by taking into consideration the age of the Mother instead of considering the age of Deceased. The interest should have been granted from the date of Claim Petition. The amounts under conventional heads are also not granted. He submitted that the Appeal be allowed and the Compensation be enhanced.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company that there was no documentary evidence in respect of the monthly income of the Deceased and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of Rs. 3,000/-. He fairly submitted that, there was no dispute about applying proper multiplier by considering the age of the Deceased and the interest should have been from the date of Application and the other amounts under the conventional heads are to be awarded. Judgments in Laxmi Devi and others Versus Mohammad Tabbar and another , (2008) 12 SCC 165 and in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat , LAWS(SC)-2023-3-140, are cited.

5. Heard both the sides. Perused the evidence a