JUDGMENT :

1. Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together.

In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2601/2015

2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants against the judgment and award dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City (Rajasthan) (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.40/2011 whereby claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and a sum of Rs.3,90,000/-was awarded as compensation on account of death of Mahesh in the accident which occurred on 12.02.2011.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,90,000/-under various heads in favour of the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. He further submits that though in the claim petition, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 23 years but in the post mortem report, his age was mentioned as 25 years and even the Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 25 years. But, without any basis, the multiplier of 15 has been applied. He further submits that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in the present case. He further submits that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. He therefore, prays that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of judgments referred above.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment of compensation as the deceased was travelling in a trolley and no separate premium was taken and the trolley was not insured. He further submits that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 15. He further submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having the license to ply the commercial vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to may any sort of compensation to the claimants-appellants.

6. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).

7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 10.04.2015 as well as the other relevant documents available on record.

8. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, so, the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 15 in the present case. In view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in the present case, while calculating the award.

9. Further, the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be added in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-