An appellate court must correct compensation awards by applying the appropriate age-based multiplier, including future prospects, accurately adjusting personal expense deductions relative to the number of dependents, and ensuring conventional damages conform to established judicial guidelines to achieve just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP TANEJA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 585/2006 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the claim petition, are that on 04.07.2004, Oma Ram @ Om Prakash was going from Khatipura to Chungi Naka via Queens Road, Jaipur on his auto-rickshaw, bearing Registration No. RJ14-1-P-2925 and in the said auto-rickshaw, two passengers namely, Rajendra Bhati and Kuldeep Singh were sitting. When he reached near Chungi Naka, a Tractor, bearing Registration No. HR-34-8823, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong side, due to which auto-rickshaw overturned and the tractor-trolley loaded with sand toppled onto the auto-rickshaw, as a result of which, Rajendra Bhati died on the spot, while Kuldeep Singh and Oma Ram sustained injuries. Later on, Oma Ram also died, as a result of the injuries sustained.

3. Thereafter, the claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- which was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.4,43,000/- was awarded along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation so awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants made the following submissions: -

i. While calculating the total loss of income, the learned Tribunal has erred by not making any addition towards future prospects in the income of the deceased.

ii. The learned Tribunal has made deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, however, considering that the deceased had eight dependants, deduction of 1/5th should be made.

iii. The learned Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of love and affection whereas the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants, should be awarded under the head of loss of consortium.

iv. The claimants are further entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate.

v. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded under the head of funeral expenses, however, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the said head.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court. The learned counsel, however, further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 17, as after considering the age of deceased i.e., 34 years, multiplier of 16 should have been applied.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced as under: -

i. As the deceased was 34 years old at the time of accident, therefore, while calculating the total loss of income, addition @40% will be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.