JUDGMENT :

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 29.11.2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga, in Compensation Case No.25 of 2010 whereby the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,100/-under Section 166 of the MV Act (after deducting the amount of ad-interim compensation Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the MV Act) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution till its actual realization, within a period of two months, failing which the same shall be recovered in due process of law, which shall carry penal interest @ 10% per annum from the date of award till its actual realization.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned award on following grounds :-

(i) Learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased-Faguwa Bilung @ Fagua Bilung as Rs.150/- per day, whereas the income of the deceased, who was working as a mason was Rs.200/-per day though the mason usually work for 25-26 days but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- considering him a labour, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, who never said that the deceased was having income of Rs.150/-rather he says that daily-wage of a labourer is Rs.150/-. P.W.1 has never stated that deceased was a labourer rather consistent evidence and materials brought by the appellants/claimants is that the deceased was a mason.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased died at the age of 23 years, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier of 18 was applicable while learned Tribunal has used the multiplier of 14. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that the multiplier should be of 18.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased was a self-employed person, as such, considering his age, there shall be 40% of future prospect, which the learned Tribunal has not considered. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the personal expenses of the deceased @ 50%, which ought to have been 1/4th in view of para 30 of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under conventional head, the amount has been given by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.2,500/-for loss of Estate and Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), which ought to have been Rs. 70,000/-in view of paragraph 59.8 of the said judgment (i.e. loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium as Rs.40,000/-and loss of funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/-).

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the interest has been given @ 6% from the date of filing of the application for two months, failing which, the same has been enhanced @ 10% per annum as penal interest from the date of award till its actual realization.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal can only award a reasonable interest either 7.5% or prevalent bank rate interest in view of the judgment passed in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC.

Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that in view of the same there may be enhanc