Future income prospects must be considered in compensation calculations, and the appropriate multiplier should reflect the deceased's age and established legal guidelines.

ORDER :

1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 16.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.162/2008.The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated16.09.2009 awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,000/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 09.08.2009, one Mukesh Kumar was travelling from Jodhpur to Abu Road in a bus bearing registration No. RJ-24-P-1250. At around 2:15 PM, on reaching near Posaliya, a truck bearing registration No. HR-63-A-9838 being driven rashly and negligently collided with the bus resulting into fatality of Mukesh.The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased Mukesh. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- awarded total compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under:

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 25.09.2008.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds:

(i) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month on the basis of prevalent minimum wages whereas the deceased had completed his diploma course in the “Electrician” trade from Industrial Training Institute, Sirohi and had also received a “Call for Interview” for the post of “Probationer Trainee – Technical Helper’’ from Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered as Rs.6,000/- per month in view of his professional qualification.

(ii) The learned Tribunal erred in omitting to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while computing the loss of income which is in total contravention to the principles/guidelines as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(iii) The learned Tribunal erred while applying a multiplier of 13 whereas keeping into consideration the age of the deceased and the guidelines laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied.

(iv) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error by awarding insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment to the extent of computation of income, but is not in a position to refute the submission regarding the multiplier, non-consideration of future prospects and insufficient compensation qua conventional heads.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. A bare perusal of the material available on record reflects that the deceased had completed the training Course at the Industrial Training Institute, Sirohi in the trade of “Electrician” (Exhibit 25A1) and had even worked as an Apprentice with the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Bhadroona, Sanchore qua which even a “Certificate for Apprenticeship” (Exhibit 27A1) for the period from 30.08.2005 to 29.08.2006 was issued. Further, the deceased had also received a “Call for Interview’’ (Exhibit 28A1) for the post of “Probationer Tra