The correct application of the multiplier and the award of future prospects under the Motor Vehicles Act are essential for determining fair compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court of Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Motor Claim Case No.233/2011 whereby an amount of Rs.29,98,913/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Nemichand Nimesh in the accident occurred on 05.05.2011.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.29,98,913/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 54 years and 10 months even then the multiplier of 9 has been applied by the Tribunal. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, multiplier of 11 should have been applied looking to the age of the deceased. Counsel submits that no amount under the head of future prospects has been awarded. Counsel submits that the deceased was a teacher and he was holding a permanent salaried job, hence the claimants-appellants were entitled to get 15% amount towards future prospects.

4. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), re-computation of the award may be done.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Counsel for the respondent-insurance Company submits that under the conventional heads, an excess amount of Rs. 95,000/-has been awarded while as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 70,000/- only. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not committed an error while applying the multiplier of 9 because the son of the deceased as got compassionate appointment.

7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment and dated 19.08.2015 as well as the other relevant documents available on record.

8. This fact is not in dispute that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 54 years and 10 months. I find no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondentinsurance Company that since the son of the deceased got compassionate appointment, hence the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012, has held that getting compassionate appointment would not disentitle the claimants to get suitable amount of compensation.

9. In para No.20 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"The second issue is "whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction." "Compassionate appointment" can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have ne