JUDGMENT :

Sabina, J.

1. Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 25.3.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and requires enhancement. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), wherein it was held as under:

"(39) Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), Rajesh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) and Munna Lal Jain, 2015 ACJ 1985 (SC). Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paras 14 and 15, Sarla Verma (supra) lays down:

'(14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

(15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.'

xxx xxx xxx

(44) As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 9 of Sarla Verma read with para 21 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 21 is extracted below:

'(21) We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.'

xxx xxx xxx

(59)...Taking into consideration the cumulative factors,