The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct computation of compensation in motor accident claims, including the consideration of future prospects, application of the correct multiplier, and awarding compensation for loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 18.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No. 610/2001 (120/1994) whereby an amount of Rs. 2,81,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of the deceased Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh in the accident, which occurred on 14.05.1994.A claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal stating that on 14.05.1994, Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh along with others was coming in Maruti car bearing Registration No. GJ-1-7983. When they reached at Udwariya Highway Road, the non-claimant No. 1, the driver of truck bearing Registration No. PB-08-A-6257 driving it rashly and negligently hit the Maruti car, due to which Bhanwar Singh, Vikram Singh, Bhikh Singh alias Dilip Singh, Jitendra Singh and Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh died. In these circumstances, the appellants-claimants claimed the compensation under various heads on account of death of the deceased Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh in the said accident.

2. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, passed the judgment and award dated 18.02.2002 vide which an amount of Rs. 2,81,800/- was awarded as compensation under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that while computing the award in the present case, no amount towards future prospects of the deceased has been awarded by the Tribunal in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700. Learned counsel further submits that since the deceased Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh was 25 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied in the present case in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 12.

5. Learned counsel further submits that since there are 03 dependents of the deceased in the present case, therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Somwati and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 is required to be awarded. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants may be enhanced suitably.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the entire evidence brought before it and the law prevailing at the time of passing of the award and thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is 'just compensation' in the present case, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla Verma (supra) and Somwati (supra), the award in the present case is required to be recomputed.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment and award dated 18.02.2002 as well as other relevant documents.

8. In the present case, admittedly, no amount towards future prospects of the deceased in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has been awarded and thus, the same is required to be taken into consideration while computing the income of the deceased in the present case. The Tribunal has erred while applying the multiplier of 17 in the present case as the deceased Harmat Singh alias Himmat Singh was 25 years of age at the time of