IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, emphasizing the correct application of multipliers and future prospects in fatal accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 21.02.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.372/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/-, in favour of claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, while fastening the liability upon the respondents, jointly and severally.

2. By way of filing the cross-objection, the respondent-Insurance Company have assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21.02.2003, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimants and fastened the liability upon the respondents jointly and severally.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.04.2001, Ambalal (deceased) was traveling to Badliya, Gujarat, when in Modasa, a truck bearing number MH-20-A-5986, driven by the respondent no.1/driver on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling on account of which Ambalal died on spot, while the pillion rider sitting with deceased Ambalal, i.e. Himmat Singh suffered serious injuries and later succumbed to death. A claim was filed by the representatives of the deceased Ambalal under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 89,56,000/- on account of death of Ambalal. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties partly allowed the claim, while fastening liability upon the respondents jointly and severally, awarded Rs. 4,57,000/- to the appellant-claimants, aggrieved of which, the appellant-claimants have preferred the present appeal, and the respondent-Insurance Company has preferred the cross-objection.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, in its cross-objection submits that the accident did not take place on account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, rather it was the motorcycle of the deceased that had slipped, which resulted in the accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the issue of negligence in favour of the appellant-claimants. He also submits that the interest levied on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on a higher side and thus, prays for reducing the interest rate on the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle had been negligent in driving the offending vehicle while taking into consideration the evidence available on record, which led to the unfortunate accident, and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 12, instead of 15, when the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects and thus, the same deserves to be added for calculating the loss of income of the deceased, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, while calculating his loss of income, which ought to have been 1/5, inasmuch as there are 7 dependents, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of