The multiplier for calculating compensation in motor vehicle accident cases should be based on the age of the deceased, as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan by award dated 04.07.2017 passed in MAC Case No.655/2015. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,43,000/- against the claim of Rs.62,00,000/-.

2. The appellants are parents of Sarthak Sharma, aged about sixteen years, who was a student of Class-XI at the time of accident. On 08.05.2015, Sarthak was going on a Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-BN-1949 along with his father. Near Suman Nursery, a Tractor bearing registration No.RJ-14-RA-3932 dashed against the motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor, as a result whereof, Sarthak fell on the road and thereafter crushed under the wheels of the Tractor. The Tractor was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. The factum of motor vehicle accident and insurance of the tractor with respondent No.3 are well proved by the evidences on the record and are not under challenge in this appeal.

3. The learned Tribunal took Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and 50% of the same was added for loss of future expectancy. Out of total Rs.4,500/-, 50% was deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. Taking multiplicand as Rs.2,250/-, the same was multiplied with 12 months for getting yearly multiplicand and multiplier of 14 was applied considering the age of the claimants. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.25,000/- to each of the claimants under the head loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses.

4. Mr. Vinay Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal adopted wrong multiplier of 14, rather it would have been 18 considering the age of the deceased. Moreover, Rs.40,000/- should have been awarded for each of the parents, who are appellants herein under the head for loss of consortium as decided in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned counsel further contends that for funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- should have been allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was 7.5% from the date of application, whereas the enhanced rate of interest is payable.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company though contends that 'just compensation' has been awarded to the appellants, however, does not dispute that after five judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier and the multiplier applicable would be as per table mentioned in Sarla Verma's case.

6. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 18 in the facts and circumstances of this case. Likewise award under the conventional head for loss of consortium ought to have been Rs.40,000/- for each of the parents. There is no dispute between the parties regarding correctness of adoption of multiplicand by the Tribunal.

7. In the result, the payable compensation is calculated as Rs.2250/-x12x18=Rs.4,86,000/-. Besides the aforesaid, Rs.80,000/- is payable to the appellants under head loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. There is no need to interfere the percentage of interest awarded by the Tribunal considering the present interest rate of the Bank as well as the interest rate on the date of award.

8. In the result, compensation payable is enhanced to Rs.5,75,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount, minus already paid amount along with the interest ordered by the Tribunal within one month of this order, failing which 12% interest would be payable from the date of default till realization.

9. The appeal stands allowe