The High Court clarified the principles for assessing compensation in motor accident cases, emphasizing the consideration of future prospects of income, the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age, and a reasonable amount for loss of love and service.

1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the judgment and award dated 14.6.2000 passed by the learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Jodhpur in M.A.C. No. 324/1996 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants was partly allowed as against the claim of Rs. 24,10,000 they were granted Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation upon the death of their son Vikas Sharma in a road accident which occurred on 22.6.1996.

2. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the entitlement of the appellant claimants to receive compensation and the liability of the respondents to shoulder the responsibility of the award are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues have become final and need not be adverted to and deliberated upon. The appellants' son Vikas Sharma aged 19 years used to work as salesman and was earning Rs. 2000-2500 per month as per the claim. He was going with his friend on his scooter on 22.6.1996 at 12 O'clock. At the Rai Ka Bagh Railway Fly Over, a Bus No. RNP-1382 owned by the respondent No. 1 driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent fashion dashed against the scooter from behind. The claimant's son Vikas expired at the spot.

3. The claimants being the parents of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs. 24,10,000. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim application holding the Corporation's driver rash and negligent and responsible for the accident awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000 to the claimants appellants. Hence this appeal.

4. Mr. M.R. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the compensation awardable to the claimants. He did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800 per month but submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the aspect of rise in income by future prospects while assessing the loss of income. He further submitted that the multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal was also wrong as the deceased was 19 years of age and the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 18 in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . He urged that the sum of Rs. 5,000 each awarded to the appellants under the head of loss of service is unjustly low. Thus, he urged that appropriate enhancement be directed in the appeal keeping in view these submissions.

5. Mr. Goswami for Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation is not in a position to dispute that the learned Tribunal did not consider rise in income by future prospects while assessing the compensation. He, however, contended that no enhancement is called for under other heads.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and the record. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is manifest that the Tribunal fell in error while assessing compensation awardable to the claimants. The Tribunal held the dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 800 per month. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,600 whereby the dependency o the claimants would work out at Rs. 800 per month after making a deduction o 50% towards personal needs and expenses of the deceased. Addition to income by future prospects is a mandatory criterion and has to be taken into account calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. Thus, applying the principles enunciated in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , and as the age of the deceased was 19 years, 50% rise in income by future prospects deserves to be added to the income of the deceased fo