IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the prospective rise in income, application of multiplier, and grant of consortium loss in determining the compensation for the deceased's family members.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge has been given to the judgment dated 26.08.2009 passed in M.A.C.P. No.165 of 2005 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar.

2. Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. Mr. Shah submitted that he was Manager in a partnership firm and books of account from Exh.43 to 46 were produced to substantiate the income.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not granting the prospective rise in income, and further an error has been committed in applying the multiplier, where as per the age of the deceased and the schedule laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier would be 18. Mr. Shah further stated that the consortium loss was required to be granted to both the parents, who lost their earning son.

3. Advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat submitted that the Tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- and appropriate amount has been considered under various other heads, thus, stated that no indulgence is required of this Court.

4. M.A.C.P. No.165 of 2005 was raised with the fact that on 24.01.2005, the deceased was going to Tejpur for the purpose of business on scooter No.GJ-3-AD-2849, which was in the name of his brother, claimant of M.A.C.P. No.187 of 2005. They were on the left side of the road. At about 9:45 a.m., when they reached Jetpur-Dhoraji Road, opposite Vishvas Cement Factory, the driver of Dumper No.GTY-7156 came in full speed, driving rashly and negligently dashed with scooter. As a result of the accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. A complaint being I-Cr.No.14/05 was filed with Jetpur City Police Station.

5. The Tribunal has considered the income of Rs.5,000/- per month by considering the fact that the deceased was attending the father’s firm and taking into consideration his experience of about two years and his involvement in the business, the amount of Rs.5,000/- was assessed, which this Court considers to be in accordance with the evidence on record; however, 40% prospective rise in income was to be considered as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, in the age below 40 years, since the applicant would fall in the category of self employment. Thus, accordingly his income would be considered as Rs.7,000/- per month [5,000 + 2,000 (5,000x40/100)].

5.1 Since the deceased was bachelor, the deduction of 1/2 of the amount is required to be made; thus the yearly future loss would come as under:

5.2 The multiplier applied would be 18; hence, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,56,000/- (42,000 x 18). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,56,000/- as loss of dependency.

5.3 Both the parents are required to be granted consortium loss, hence, under the head of consortium loss, the amount would come to Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2).

5.4 Following the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), under the head of loss to estate and funeral expense, Rs.15,000/- each is granted.

6. In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be:

7. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation as Rs.4,20,000/-. The claimant would be entitled to get Rs.4,46,000/- (8,66,000 – 4,20,000) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%.

7.1 The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight weeks from the date of receipt o