The main legal point established is the re-computation of compensation amount based on the deceased's income and future prospects, in accordance with relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment dated 02.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bundi (Raj.) in MAC case No. 427A/2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs. 4,37,900/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Dharamraj in the accident which occurred on 18.07.2008.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants awarding compensation of RS. 4,37,900/- under various heads in favor of the appellants-claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the income of the deceased-Dharamraj was determined by treating him as a daily-wager but while assessing his income, the same was considered for 26 days only.

4. Counsel further submits that as per the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh & Anr. v. Barkat & Ors., reported in 2012 R.A.R. 499 (Raj.) wherein the minimum wages of the deceased were computed for 30 days instead of 26 days.

5. Counsel also submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 (SC) 5157.

6. He, therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be considered in the light of the judgments of Pranay Sethi (supra) and in the light of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh (supra).

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants-claimants has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it, thus, the judgment dated 02.06.2016 does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants though the re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and in the case of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh (supra) decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) excess amount under the conventional heads has been granted by the Tribunal which is liable to revised by this Court.

10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 02.06.2016 as well as the other materials available on record.

11. Admittedly, the deceased was 16 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal while assessing his income on the basis of daily-wages has computed for 26 days only.

12. The Tribunal should have computed daily wages of the deceased-Dharamraj for 30 days instead of 26 days in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh (supra). Further, the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be enhanced in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

13. Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-