The main legal point established is the correct determination of notional income, application of the appropriate multiplier, and awarding compensation for future prospects in motor accident claims cases.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - This appeal has been submitted by the claimants appellants against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kota (for short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 1290/2014 (105/09) whereby an award of Rs. 2,50,298/- was passed by way of compensation on account of death of Vikram in an accident which occurred on 04.11.2008.

2. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,298/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 18 years, he was a student and pursuing B.B.A. course. But the Tribunal without any basis determined the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per year. Counsel further submits that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and Ors. reported in MACD 2013 (SC) 289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has determined the notional income of the students/persons above 15 years of age as Rs. 30,000/- per year. Counsel further submits that looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied, but in the instant case the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. Counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. Counsel further submits that under the conventional head also, very meager amount of compensation has been awarded, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court. Counsel further prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants 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 28.07.2015 does not call for any interference of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellants with respect to re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal and perused the documents available on the record.

7. Admittedly, the deceased Vikram was 18 years of age and he was pursuing the course of B.B.A. at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 15 in the present case. The Tribunal was also not right in determining the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per year and it should have been determined as Rs. 30,000/- per year. In the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied in the present case while calculating the award. Further the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be added towards future prospects in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

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