The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier based on the age of the deceased, future prospects, and funeral expenses, in accordance with settled legal principles and relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 05.12.2011 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.77 of 1995 whereby and where under the Tribunal has awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum thereon from 17.09.2009 to the claimants within the period of 60 days from the date of judgment failing which the Insurance Company was directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum till its payment.

3. The case of the complainants in brief is that the son of the complainants namely Sanjay Verma died in a motor vehicle accident which took place at about 11:35 p.m. on 27.01.1995 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration no. MMP3581, while the deceased Sanjay Verma was driving the scooter bearing registration no. MH-02F-3448.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Sanjay Verma was aged about 28 years at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 2,37,600/- per annum. The claimants have made a total claim of Rs. 27,24,500/-. The tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be 28 years 1 month 1 day and his income at Rs. 1,98,000/- per annum and taking into consideration the age of the claimant No.1 being the father of the deceased to be 60 years and the age of the claimant No.2 being the mother to be 54 years, applied the multiplier of 5 and further awarded Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the age of the deceased being 28 years 1 month 1 day on the date of the accident nor there is any dispute regarding the assessment of the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,98,000/- as assessed by the learned tribunal. The deceased Sanjay Verma was not a salaried employee. He was a self-employed person being a freelance Editor (Film) with Multichannel Advertising and Production Pvt. Ltd. Bombay.

5. Mr. Rajiv Anand, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants have raised several grounds in the appeal memo in challenging the impugned judgment and award but they abandon all other grounds and confine their challenge to the impugned judgment and award for enhancement of compensation only on the following four grounds:

(i) The learned tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the claimants and instead of the multiplier 5 the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier 17.

(ii) The second ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants for enhancing the amount of compensation is that besides the assessed annual income of Rs. 1,98,000/-, an addition of 40% income of the deceased should have been added towards future prospects in calculating the total income.

(iii) The third ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants is that instead of awarding interest from 17.09.2009, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the interest on compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(iv) The fourth ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants is that instead of granting Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses the Tribunal ought to have allowed Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses.

6. In support of his first contention regarding the multiplier, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Reshma Kumari versus Madan Mohan , (2013) 9 SCC 65 wherein the Bench of three Hon''ble judges of Supreme Court of India has held in paragraph-37 as under-

"37. If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table read with para 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma , (2009) 6 SCC 121 is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in f