The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant Supreme Court judgments to determine 'just compensation' in motor accident claims, particularly regarding future prospects and 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 25.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deedwana, District Nagour in Claim Case No. 06/2010 whereby an amount of Rs. 5,54,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of Sukha Ram in the accident, which occurred on 27.11.2009.

2. A claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal stating that on 27.11.2009, when Sukha Ram was coming from Kuchaman to Ladaria in his tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-21-2R-4595, driver of jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-14-1C-0131 driving it rashly and negligently hit the trolley of the tractor from behind, due to which, the tractor turned down and Sukharam sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Molasar from where he was referred to Kuchaman and then, further referred from Kuchaman to Ajmer, where he died while undergoing treatment. In these circumstances, the appellants-claimants claimed the compensation under various heads on account of death of Sukha Ram.

3. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, passed the judgment and award dated 25.11.2011 vide which an amount of Rs. 5,54,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation in the head of future prospects of the deceased in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700. He further submits that since the deceased Sukha Ram was 44 years old and was self-employed, therefore, amount towards future prospects to the tune of 25% is required to be awarded in the present case. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration this aspect. Learned counsel further submits that since no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium to the minor son and the wife of the deceased Sukha Ram 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, therefore, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- is required to be awarded in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation in favour of the appellant-claimant may be enhanced suitably.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has 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. He further submits that looking to the age group of the deceased, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in the present case is on the higher side. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact of not awarding any amount towards the future prospects of the deceased as well as loss of consortium in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, he fairly submits that the calculation of amount in the present case is required to be made in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Somwati (supra).

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment and award dated 25.11.2011 as well as other relevant documents.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased Sukha Ram was 44 years of age at the time of accident. He was self-employed and therefore, the amount towards the future prospects is required to be computed in the