The court emphasized that the assessment of compensation must consider future prospects and personal expense deductions based on dependents while applying an appropriate multiplier according to established precedents.

M.W. CHANDWANI, J.

1. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel Mr D. N. Kukday appearing for the appellant and Mr U. J. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. This appeal challenges the impugned award dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in Claim Petition No.36 of 2013, thereby granting Rs.18,63,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum from the date of petition till its realization to the original claimants towards compensation on account of the death of Syd. Noor Ali.

3. On 24.01.2012 at about 01:30 p.m., deceased Syd. Noor Ali was travelling by taxi bearing No.MH-30- E-9034 from Akola to Patur. The driver was driving the said taxi in a rash and negligent manner in high speed. When the offending taxi reached near Nandkhed branch road, it bumped over a pit and its rear door got opened due to which the deceased fell on the road. He sustained severe head injuries and died on the spot. Crime No.106 of 2012 came to be registered against the driver of the offending taxi for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and under Section 184 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. The original claimants claiming themselves to be the dependents of deceased Syd. Noor Ali filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed the appellant – original respondent No.2 and respondent No.6 – original respondent No.1 to pay jointly and severally, the compensation amount of Rs.18,63,000/- inclusive of no fault liability amount of Rs.50,000/- to the original claimants alongwith interest @ 8.50%. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award, the present appeal came to be filed on the ground of quantum of compensation and granting future prospects to the extent of 50% of the income of deceased Syd. Noor Ali.

4. Mr. D. N. Kukday, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in-spite of discarding the evidence of claimants’ witness Salim Khan, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.350/- per day which was deposed by Salim Khan who is a Building Contractor. It is contended that the Tribunal ought not to have granted the future prospects as they lacked any promotional avenue. According to him, notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month ought to have been awarded. To buttress his submission, he seeks to rely on the following decisions :

i) New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another vs. Vishal Rameshwar Mote and Another , 2020(4) Mh.L.J. 598 ,

ii) Malanbai w/o Mahipatrao Tumane and Another vs. Suresh S/o. Natthuji Moharle and Another , 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 821 and

iii) Nisha W/o Naresh Gajre and Others vs. Subhash S/o Laxman More and Another , 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 631.

5. Per contra, Mr. U. J. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 vehemently submitted that deceased Syd. Noor Ali was working as a mason and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income at Rs.350/- per day. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and in wake of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors, 2017 (16) SCC 680 has rightly granted compensation towards future prospects. On the contrary, the Tribunal applied the wrong multiplier of 15 instead of 17 without considering the age of deceased Syd. Noor Ali. For applying the multiplier, age of deceased is required to be considered. Therefore, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced by applying the multiplier of 17. He stressed on the fact that, for enhancement of compensation in appeal, no cross-appeal o