The court established that compensation for a deceased must consider the age-based multiplier and future prospects, enhancing the total amount awarded.

ORDER :

1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 120/2011. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated25.06.2012 awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,952/- in favour of the claimant 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 06.03.2011, Sushma Deval, along with her husband Vishan Singh, their daughter Surbhi and their daughter’s friends Rajna and Alka, were traveling from Khiwandi to Jodhpur in their car bearing registration number RJ-19-CB-5497. At 10:30 AM, when they reached near Bandai, a car bearing registration number RJ-14-CG-8618 driven by Satpal Singh, collided with their car. Satpal Singh was driving rashly and negligently in the wrong direction. The collision occurred while Vishan Singh was driving on the correct side of the road. Unfortunately, due to the accident, Sushma Deval succumbed to her injuries and Vishan Singh, Surbhi, Rajna and Alka sustained grievous injuries and were taken to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. However, during the course of treatment, Surbhi also passed away. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

3. The appellant-claimant is the father of deceased Surbhi. 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.8,499/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,17,952/- in favour of the appellant-claimant, 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. 10.06.2011.

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

(i) The learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 8 as per the age of the father of the deceased whereas, keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e. 27 years, a multiplier of 17 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.

(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 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 committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company though vehemently opposed the submissions as made by counsel for the appellant, but is not in a position to refute the legal and the settled position regarding the above submissions.

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

7. A bare perusal of the Secondary School Examination Certificate (Exhibit G/52) reflects the “Date of Birth” of deceased Surbhi to be 02.07.1983. The document is undisputed and hence, while placing reliance on the said certificate, it can be concluded that the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, as per the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra), this Court is of the opinion that a multiplier of 17 as per the age of the deceased i.e. 27 years, ought to have been applied.

8. With regard to the addition of futur