The age of the deceased should be considered for the multiplier calculation, and claimants can be entitled to compensation even if not specifically pleaded.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants-claimants have been awarded Rs. 2,28,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest@ 7.5% per annum by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu vide Award dated 25.01.2014 on account of the death of the son of the appellants in a vehicular accident which took place on 05.06.2010.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the Award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the earning of the deceased son of the appellants as Rs. 3000/- per month; that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 11 by taking into consideration the age of the parents of the deceased instead of the age of the deceased.

3. The respondent-Insurance Company is represented through the counsel.

4. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are not required to be heard in the matter as the liability has been imposed upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award which has not been challenged by the Insurance Company.

5. Rajni Devi died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. JK02J-9254,which took place on 05.06.2010 is not in dispute. The deceased was studying in B.Sc final year at the time of accident. The claimants have stated in the claim petition that the deceased had monthly income of Rs. 12000/- as she was earning the income from tuition job. The Tribunal while passing the award has held that the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 36000/-, meaning thereby, that the Tribunal has held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month. The Court finds no reason to upset the finding of the Tribunal in this regard.

6. The appellants are also held entitled to compensation on account of future prospects. Keeping in view the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants are entitled to 40% of the established income towards future prospects.

7. The appellants are also aggrieved of the multiplier applied by the Tribunal so far as the present case is concerned. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent though justifies the same yet the court is of the view that keeping in view the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the age of the deceased is required to be taken into consideration and not the age of the parents of the deceased. The age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of her death, therefore, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied in the case in hand.

8. The Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income on personal expenses of the deceased. The Court finds no reason to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal so far as this aspect of the case is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellants are also entitled to loss of Filial consortium and loss of love and affection in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 20180 Supreme (SC) 892.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has argued that the appellants are not entitled to compensation on the aforesaid account as the appellants had not sought any compensation on the aforesaid grounds. The Court is of the view that the appellants cannot be deprived of their right to compensation on the aforesaid head though not pleaded by the appellants in the appeal as the court is to grant the just compensation in favour of the claimants and can grant more compensation than sought for by the claimants. The appellants are the parents of the deceased. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, the appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of Filial consortium. They are entitled to compensation on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-each. Thus, the compensation to which the appellants are held entitled to is as under: