The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases to calculate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

ORDER

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 28.04.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.7), Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.405/2005 (1946/2004), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,72,700/- on account of death of Shiv Dutt Joshi, which occurred on 22.11.2001.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,700/- under various heads in favour of the appellants- claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and he was working as Class IV employee in the department of Sales Tax and at the time of his death he was earning Rs.5020/-. Learned counsel submitted 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. Learned counsel further submitted that under the head of conventionalhead a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded while the claimants-appellants are entitled to get Rs.70,000/-. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and award needs suitable enhancement.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has rightly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the amount of compensation, in the case after evaluating the evidence available on the record. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment dated 28.04.2011 does not call for any intereference by this Court and lastly, he argued that the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 16, looking to the age of the deceased, while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121, and as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier of 15 should have been applied instead of 16.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, are not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with respect to re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra)' and 'Pranay Sethi (supra)'.

6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone through the judgment dated 28.04.2011, as well as the other relevant documents available on the record. it is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 38 years when the accident occurred and it is also not in dispute that the deceased was a Government Servant and he was posted as Class IV employee in the Department of Sales Tax when the accident occurred. In the light of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in the present case while calculating the award.

7. Since, no compensation has been awarded in the head of future prospects, the amount to the extent of 50% is to be added towards future prospects. The appellants are also entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- in the conventional head, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Pranay Sethi (supra)".

8. In view of the material available on record and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation in the following terms:-