The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to compensation for motor vehicle accidents, including the calculation of loss of dependency, future prospects, and the use of multipliers to determine the compensation amount.

Sanjay Karol, J.

These appeals arise out of the same award, hence, are being disposed of together.

2. Petition, filed under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stands allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), and in Claim Petition No.1-NL/2 of 2011, titled as Amarjeet Singh and others v. Pappu and others, claimants have been held entitled to compensation as under:

“Rs.9,37,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till deposit of the awarded amount. Out of the total awarded amount petitioners No.3 and 4 shall be entitled to collect amount of Rs.50,000/- each while petitioner No.1 who is father of the deceased shall be entitled to collect an amount of Rs.1.0 lac. The remaining awarded amount shall be collected by the petitioner No.2 who is mother of the deceased.”

3. The Tribunal, while adjudicating the petition, framed the following issues:

“Issue No.1: Whether Lucky Arora died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 25.10.2010 at about 5:45 p.m. Near Annapurna Hotel (Bhud Barrier) due to rash and negligent driving of respondent NO.1? OPP

Issue No.2: If Issue No.1, is answered in affirmative, whether the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the grant of compensation if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP

Issue No.3: Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3

Issue No.4: Relief.”

4. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals being that vehicle bearing No.HR-68- 0368, owned by Kamaal Din (owner), driven by Pappu (driver), insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, met with an accident on 25.10.2010. The driver being at fault as his actions were rash and negligent. In the said accident, Lucky Arora, who was driving Motorcycle No.HP-12C-4121, died. FIR No.146/10, dated 25.10.2010, for commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code, was also registered at Police Station, Baddi.

5. Tribunal found the deceased to have died as a result of (i) rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. the Tipper, (ii) claimants being dependents were entitled for compensation, (iii) taking the annual income of the deceased, for the purpose of dependency to be Rs.57,000/-, by applying a multiplier of 16, compensation on account of loss of dependency was determined to be Rs.9,12,000/-. In addition, claimants were also held entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.

6. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, assails the award on the following grounds: (i) deceased, who was pursuing his studies in B.Com, was unemployed, hence claimants are entitled to compensation as per ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683, (ii) in any event, income of the deceased, as per salary certificate, cannot be said to have been proven in accordance with law.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the claimants, assails the award, for the reasons that (i) the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 16. It should have been 18, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, (2015) 6 SCC 347; and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, (ii) inadequate compensation stands awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54. Further, rebutting the contentions of the Insurer, it is argued that proceedings being summary in nature, claimants called the Accountant of the Employer/ Organization, who has pro