The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of multipliers for calculating compensation and the consideration of dependency and expenses in deducting the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimants of deceased - Kailash Kumawat against the award dated31.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (afterwards referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 102/2001, whereby, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by wife, sons and mother of the deceased Kailash Kumawat, aged 28 years, who died in a road accident on 12.10.2000 with the averments that the deceased while travelling to village Biliya from Bhilwara city in Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-06-P1266, another Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-06-P940, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came from opposite side and collided with the Tempo, in which deceased was travelling; resultantly deceased sustained injury and during the treatment died on the same day. With the other relevant averments, a sum of Rs. 23,40,000/- as compensation money was claimed from driver, owner and Insurance Companies of both the vehicles.

3. As per the reply filed by Insurance Company, driver of the insured Tempo was not having a valid driving license, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable.

4. Replies were also filed on behalf of driver, owner and Insurance Company of Tempo No.RJ.06/P.1266, in which, deceased was travelling.

5. During inquiry, statements of Smt. Sajni Devi (A.W.1)-wife, Mahavir Prasad (A.W.2)-brother and Ashok Kumar (A.W.3) were recorded. From the side of non-applicants statement of Prahalad Raigoyal (N.A.W.1) was recorded to prove the license of tempo driver of the offending vehicle.

6. After inquiry, learned Tribunal while imposing 50 % liability on each vehicle and holding driver, owner and Insurance Company liable jointly and severely, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- as compensation money.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of award, this appeal has been filed before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the age of deceased was 28 years at the time of accident and as per the principles laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 19 2017 SC 5157, for the age group of 26 to 30, multiplier of 17 is applicable. Learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount of compensation by applying multiplier of 9.

9. It was contended that learned Tribunal was also not correct in deducting l/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The mother was also dependent on the deceased and looking to the four number of dependents, l/4th amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased. Claimants are also entitled to get Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra).

10. On the other hand, learned counsels for both the Insurance Companies contened that mother was not dependent on the deceased, hence, learned Tribunal was right in deducting l/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that award should be re-assessed following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma (supra).

12. It is not disputed that age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident, hence, learned Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 9, which is applicable for the age group of 56 to 60. Learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier on the basis of age of the claimants, therefore, in the present case, according to the age of the deceased multiplier of 17 is applicable.

13. Regarding deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, it is not disputed that claim petition was filed by wi