Compensation in motor accident cases must consider future prospects and conventional heads, with the multiplier reflecting the deceased's age, as per established guidelines.

ORDER :

1. The appeal is reported to barred by 242 days.

2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of the said delay.

3. The service on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is complete.

4. For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay caused in filing the present appeal is condoned.

5. Admit. Issue notice.

Service on respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 is dispensed with at the request of learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and at the risk of the appellants-claimants.

Learned counsel Mr. Vishal Singhal has put in appearance for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Hence, service is complete.

6. At the request of learned counsels for the appellants- claimants and the Insurance Company, the matter has been heard finally.

7. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat, District Pali in MAC Case No. 73/2011.

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 20.11.2013 awarded a sum of Rs.7,01,960/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

8. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 13.08.2011, Tikamchand was en route from Devgarh to Sojat, carrying vegetables in his pickup bearing registration no. RJ 27/GA/7416. The pickup was being driven by Raju. The pickup being driven rashly and negligently by the driver upended and met with an accident. Unfortunately, due to the accident, Raju succumbed to his injuries, and Tikamchand sustained grievous injuries. However, during the course of treatment, Tikamchand also died.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

9. The appellants-claimants are the dependants of deceased Tikamchand. 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.4,836/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,01,960/- in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under:

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12.10.2011.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants raised only three grounds:

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

(ii) Secondly, 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 principles/guidelines as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(iii) Thirdly, learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 15 whereas, keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e., 35 years, a multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied in terms of the guidelines as set out in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121

11. Learned counsel for the