The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the correct legal principles in determining compensation for motor vehicle accidents, as guided by the precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) AIR SC 5157.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - None present for the appellant even in the second round.

2. The appellant has preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.705/2000 claiming the following relief :-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and and the impugned award dated 18.9.2000 so far against the present appellant may kindly be set aside and quashed and it be declared that the appellant is liable for any compensation. Costs be allowed to the appellant."

3. The claimants have filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded vide aforesaid judgment dated 18.9.2000.

4. The unfortunate accident happened on 28.3.1995 when deceased Chhogalal was going on his cycle on BhilwaraChittorgarh road, he was hit by jeep no.RJ-06/C-1082 and consequently he succumbed to the injuries received in the accident.

5. On a perusal of the material available on the record as well as the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has decided all the three issues in favour of the claim by a reasoned order. Admittedly, the jeep was belonging to the police department and the documents of investigation in FIR No.120/1995 pertaining to the same accident verified that the jeep belonged to the office of Superintendent of Police and Laxman Singh was the driver of the jeep and subsequently challan was filed for offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC. Mere denial of the appellant cannot be accepted as contradictions are there in the papers of criminal case. In the aforesaid circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal are absolutely justified and there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment and award.

6. The instant appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the cross objectors submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre income of the deceased and does not fulfill the criteria of minimum wages. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier and has not awarded the correct future prospects. He further submits that the deduction of 5 dependents is not appropriately dealt with by the learned Tribunal.

8. After perusing the material available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the cross objectors, this Court is of the opinion that the factual matrix arrived at by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference and the compensation awarded under all heads is satisfactory. However, this Court directs learned counsel for the cross objectors to submit the calculation afresh in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Accordingly, learned counsel for the objectors has furnished before this Court and the same reads as follows:-

9. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and in light of the precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the enhanced award of Rs.38,436/- is granted which shall be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment is made. The enhanced amount is to be paid within three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9%