The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles set out in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 to correct errors in the calculation of compensation by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

1. Matter comes up on an interim application No.29782/2009 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein.

3. Delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. With the consent of the parties, arguments have been heard, at this stage.

5. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2009 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.348/2008 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been allowed and respondent-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,85,000/-with interest at the rate of 6.25 per cent per annum in favour of appellants-claimants.

6. 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-appellants and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants as indicated above.

7. Counsel for the appellant submits that the dependents were six in number and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors: (2017) 16 SCC 680, the personal expenses of the deceased should have been deducted as 1/4th, but without any basis, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded. He further submits that under the conventional head, a very petty amount of Rs.53,000/- has been awarded while as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) appellants-claimants are entitled to get Rs.70,000/- under conventional head.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submits that looking to the age of deceased, multiplier of 17 should have been applied but the Tribunal, without any basis, has applied the multiplier of 18. However, learned counsel is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellants-claimants with respect to recomputation of award in the present case in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

9. Heard.

10. Considered the arguments of counsel for the parties.

11. Admittedly, the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of accident and the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 in the present case. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, while the amount under the head of personal expenses should have been deducted as 1/4th as the appellants-claimants are six in number, who are dependents of the deceased.

12. Further, the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be added towards future prospects and Rs.70,000/- is required to be added towards conventional head in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

13. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-