The court established that compensation calculations must accurately reflect the deceased's age, income, dependents, and future prospects, adhering to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 19.09.2000 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC Case No. 118/1997 whereby an amount of Rs. 4,61,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of Surajmal Meena in the accident, which occurred on 31.07.1997.

2. A claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal stating that on 31.07.1997, Surajmal Meena was coming from Gojiya to his house on the motor-cycle. When he reached at National Highway No. 8 in Village Tidi, the driver of truck bearing Registration No. RJ-12-G-0338 driving it rashly and negligently hit the motor-cycle driven by Surajmal Meena, due to which he received grievous injuries resulting into his death on the spot and his motor-cycle was also completely damaged. In these circumstances, the appellants-claimants claimed the compensation under various heads on account of death of Surajmal Meena in the said accident.

3. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, partly allowed the claim petition vide Judgment and Award dated 19.09.2000 vide which an amount of Rs. 4,61,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has not correctly computed the compensation in the present case and thus, has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 4,61,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants. He further submits that the findings on Issue No. 2 recorded by the Tribunal are not correct as the deceased was a permanent employee of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and was earning a sum of Rs. 5,244.25 per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10, whereas, the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of death and therefore, the multiplier of 16 was required to be applied in the present case in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 12. Learned counsel further submits that there are 05 dependents of the deceased and therefore, the deduction of l/4th share from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditures should have been made but the Tribunal has erred in deducting l/3rd share from the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects of the deceased in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700 has been awarded. He further submits that in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4284, the appellants-claimants are entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants may be recomputed and enhanced suitably.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the entire evidence brought before it and the law prevailing at the time of passing of the award and thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is 'just compensation' in the present case and therefore, no interference is warranted in this case. He further submits that the interest on the enhanced amount should be paid at the prevailing rate of interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. However, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company is not in a position to controvert the fact