The court applied the principles of delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and emphasized the application of relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re-computing the compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The counsel for the appellants prays for dispensing with the service of notices upon respondents Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 at his own risk and cost.

2. Ordered accordingly.

3. The instant appeal is barred by a delay of 109 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred for condonation of delay occasioned in filing the appeal but the same is not seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 109 days occasioned in filing of the appeal is condoned.

5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself and heard on merits.

6. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deedwana District Nagaur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.38/2000, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,74,000/- in favour of the claimants.

7. A claim petition was filed by the claimants on account of death of Manoj in the accident which occurred on 31.10.1997.

8. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and hearing counsel for the parties, adjudicated the claim petition vide its judgment and award dated 09.09.2005 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,74,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants. Aggrieved against the same, instant appeal has been preferred.

9. The counsel for the appellants submits that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal seriously erred in not considering and awarding any amount towards future prospects in this case in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157. He further submits that amount towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate has also not been awarded in the present case by the Tribunal. Thus, the counsel for the appellants submits that the award is required to be recomputed in the light of Judgment, of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi (supra) and the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. V/s somwati & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 644.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while adjudicating the claim petition and computing the award, the Tribunal appreciated the entire evidence and awarded a just compensation in the present case vide its judgment and award dated 09.09.2005. The counsel fairly submits that the award is required to be recomputed in the light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi (supra) and the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. V/s somwati & Ors. (supra).

11. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and in the light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi (supra) and the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. V/s Somwati & Ors. (supra), determination of compensation is required to be done afresh.

12. The finding recorded by Tribunal on the assessment of income of deceased Manoj appears to be on the higher side as the Tribunal has taken into consideration an amount of Rs.2000/- per month as monthly income of deceased Manoj. Since, the Tribunal itself has recorded the finding that no documentary proof with respect to the income of the deceased was submitted before it, therefore, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.2000/- per month appears to be on the higher side. This court feels that in the year 1997, the income of a skilled labour was Rs.1300/- per month, therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased Manoj was working in a Transport company at Surat, his income @ Rs.1800/- would be an appropriate income for computing the award in the present case. The deceased was of the age of 21 years, therefore, multiplier of 18 in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i