The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to future prospects, with the court holding that the claimants are entitled to 50% in addition towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 35 years old and was in a permanent job.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu (for short ’the Tribunal’) vide impugned judgment and award dated 04.07.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 155/2009, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,46,160/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellants.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition with the averment that on 11.09.2009, when the deceased Chandra Shekhar Giri and Hajarimal were coming from Ratangarh after attending Shikshak Sammelan. When they reached near Malsar village, a Pick-up bearing No. RJ-10 GA 1501 being driven rash and negligently hit them and they both died on the spot.

3. Learned tribunal issued notices to the non-claimants. Non-claimants No. 1 & 2 filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the claimants have exaggerated the claim and also disputed the income of the deceased Chandrashekhar. Non-claimant insurance company filed reply and stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of deceased and that the vehicle in question was being driver in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment and award dated 04.07.2013 awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,46,160/- in favour of the claimant/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation.

5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per evidence of the claimants, the deceased Chandra Shekhar was earning a sum of Rs. 20,331/- per month, therefore, learned Tribunal while calculating the compensation ought to have taken the income as Rs. 20,331/- instead of Rs. 19,600/-. Further, the learned tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount towards future prospects whereas, the deceased was 35 years of age and as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, future prospects of 50% ought to have been added.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Since the claimants shall be receiving pension in the sum of Rs. 9,500/- per month and the eligible claimant shall also be entitled for compassionate appointment, therefore, no case is made out for awarding any compensation for future prospects.

7. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award dated 04.07.2013 as also material available on record.

8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, impugned award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the learned Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 16, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. While quantifying the loss of income, the multiplier of 16 adopted for computing the compensation is justified in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt. ] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 and case of Pranay Sethi (supra). However, so far as future prospects is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the claimants are entitled to 50% in addition towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 35 years old and was in permanent job.

9. At this stage, it may be relevant to take into consideration the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and mo