Compensation for motor accident claims must reflect actual income and future prospects, applying appropriate multipliers as established in case law.

ORDER :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Pindwara, District Sirohi in MAC Case No. 386/2022 (180/2017) (CIS No. 386/2022).

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 awarded a sum of Rs.7,76,100/- 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 23.03.2017, Prabhuram Meghwal was en route from Bamanwada to Pindwara, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. RJ-38-SA- 7020. At approximately 3:00 PM, upon reaching Sarhad Jhankar, a Toyota car bearing registration no. GJ-01-RB-1168, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with Prabhuram's motorcycle from behind, resulting in an accident. Unfortunately, Prabhuram succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. FIR No. 101/2017 pertaining to the accident was lodged at Police Station Pindwara.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.2 – Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants are the dependants of deceased Prabhuram. 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.5,382/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,76,100/- 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. 28.06.2017.

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

(i) The learned Tribunal erred while computing the income of the deceased to be merely Rs.5,382/- per month while treating him as an un-skilled labour whereas he was employed as Supervisor with Divine Stone, RIICO Industrial Area, Sirohi and was earning a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. Further, the deceased also earned an additional income of Rs.10,000/- through agricultural activities.

(ii) The learned Tribunal erred while applying multiplier of 11 only whereas keeping into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of accident, i.e. 50 years 7 months 29 days, a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied in terms of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 Further, counsel relied upon the case of Shashikala and Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.; (2015) 9 SCC 150 to submit that the multiplier to be used while computing the compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not on basis of the running age.

(iii) The learned Tribunal erred while taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 10% only whereas keeping in view the age and income of the deceased, an addition of 30% ought to have been made with regard to future prospects in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680

(iv) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the ground raised qua the income and age of the deceased. However, he is not in a position to refute the legal position regarding