IMPORTANT POINT
The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident claims must be determined based on the age of the deceased, as established in Sarla Verma's case, ensuring just and fair compensation for loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.12.2019, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption), Jammu (for short 'the Tribunal'), in claim petition titled 'Sadika Bibi & Ors. v. Sh. Ravinder Kumar & Ors.'.

2. A claim petition was filed by Sadika Bibi and her two children before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Sh. Raj Ali on 04.01.2017 in a road accident. The deceased-Raj Ali (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 and 3) on 04.01.2017 at 07:30 P.M., while walking on the roadside at Kartholi, Bari Brahmana on the National Highway, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK06-6695, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 towards Vijaypur hit the deceased causing his death.

3. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') sought compensation on account of the death of the deceased, to the tune of Rs.56,50,000/- along with interest in their claim petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company resisted its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy at the time of the alleged accident.

4. The Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determining :

(1) Whether the deceased has suffered has suffered a Road Traffic Accident on 4th day of January, 2017 around 07:30 P.M. at Kartholi, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bari Brahmana involving the use of the offending vehicle (Maruti Car) bearing Registration No. JK06-6695 which caused him serious injuries and resulted in his death and whether that accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the respondent No. 1? OPP

(2) Whether the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to claim and receive compensation on account of his death having occurred in the said motor vehicle accident? OPP

(3) If the aforesaid issues are answered in the affirmative, what would be the amount of just compensation to be awarded to the claimants and which of the respondents would be liable to pay them that compensation? OPP

(4) Whether the respondent No. l was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? If yes, what would be its effect on the liability of the insurance company regarding the payment of compensation? OPR-3

(5) Whether the respondent No. l had used the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If yes, what would be its effect on the liability of the insurance company regarding the payment of compensation? OPR-3

(6) the relief to which parties are entitled.

5. The claimants produced PW-Murad Ali and Sh. Parshotam Sharma as their witnesses. The respondent-Insurance Company, however, did not produce any witness in their support.

6. The Tribunal by way of the impugned award held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.42,52,570/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution till the date of its final realization.

7. The claimants are aggrieved of the impugned award primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to determine just, fair and proper compensation on account of 'loss of dependency' and the compensation awarded is not in accordance with the law laid down in "Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.". Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased-Raj Ali, at the time of his death was 42 years old, his date of birth was 05.04.1976, therefore, he falls in the age group of 41 to 45 years. The appropriate multiplier for calculating the compensation would be 14 which was also stated by the Tribunal but the Tribunal erroneously scaled down the multiplier by 2 units i.e., from 14 to 12, on the ground of uncertainties of life. It is u