The main legal point established is the correct application of multipliers and legal principles in the computation of compensation in motor vehicular accident cases.

1. On 25.08.2012, a motor vehicular accident took place involving two vehicles one being tanker bearing registration no.HR-47C-0065 (described as the offending vehicle), the collision having taken place on account of its rash driving, the other vehicle being Alto car bearing registration no.DL-9CS-8213 (the car), the offending vehicle concededly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant insurance company. Three persons travelling in the car, they being Vishal Rajput, Harender Singh and Bhupinder suffered injuries, the first two dying in the result and the last suffering injuries which have rendered him permanently disabled. The parents of the two deceased persons, and the injured Bhupinder, took out accident claim proceedings (MACP No.417/12/2014, 416/12/2014 and 415/12/2014) impleading, among others, the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. The three claim cases were clubbed together for inquiry and were decided by common judgment dated 24.10.2016 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal). The case of the claimants about negligent driving of the offending vehicle being the cause of action was upheld. This finding has attained finality as it was never challenged. The insurance company (the appellant) was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation which it concedes though its plea of there being breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy was also upheld and it was granted rights to recover.

3. By the appeals at hand, however, the insurance company questions the computation of compensation in the three cases referred to above.

Vishal Rajput, one of the persons who died was born on 10.09.1993, Harender, the other person, who died was borne on 14.07.1992. Thus, on the date of accident they were 21 years and 20 years respectively. They were, however, bachelors, the claim for compensation having been brought by their respective parents. The tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘18’, going by the age of the deceased persons. This obviously was not correct. It is the loss of dependency which had to be compensated and, for this, the age of the claimants would regulate the choice of multiplier in these cases, it being higher. [Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362].

4. In case of death of Vishal Rajput, photo copy of the ration card (page 473 of the tribunal’s record) indicates the year of birth of father and mother as 1956 and 1960 respectively. This would mean, the first claimant was 56 years old on the relevant date and the second claimant was 52 years old on the relevant date. The average age being 54 years, the calculation will have to be made with the multiplier of 11.

5. In case of Harender, copy of the ration card (Ex.PW-1/2) shows the year of birth of father and mother as 1954 and 1962 respectively. This would mean they were 58 and 50 years old. The average age again being 54 years, the dependency loss has to be worked out with the multiplier of 11.

6. In case of death of Harender, and injuries on Bhupinder, the tribunal adopted the minimum wages of Rs.8528/- per month as the assumed income, this being the minimum wages for a matriculate person on the relevant date, there being no formal proof of actual income. Strangely, in identically placed case of the death of Vishal Rajput, on mere production of the document purporting to be a salary certificate issued by private entity, the income was assumed to be Rs.14,800/- per month. Since no formal evidence was adduced, such unsubstantiated document could not have been the basis of calculation. In these circumstances, the compensation even in case of death of Vishal Rajput has to be worked out similarly at minimum wages of Rs.8528/- per month.

7. The tribunal has added the factor of future prospects