The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, including the application of the correct multiplier and consideration of prospect of future increase. Additionally, the judgment clarified the entitlement of the widow to compensation, even after remarriage, based on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

AMIT RAWAL J.

1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 24 years who died in a motor accident on 15.04.2005. When deceased-Shinder Singh was returning from his work place to his village, the motor cycle he was riding, was hit by a maruti car bearing No.PB-04H-0404 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, resulting into serious injuries. He died on the way to the hospital. The claimants were widow and mother before the Tribunal but the present appeal is preferred only by the mother. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs.8000/- per month by running a scooter workshop. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, took the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month, made a deduction of 1/3rd and applied a multiplier of 15 to assess the loss of dependency at Rs.3,60,000/-. It also provided Rs.3000/- as funeral expenses and assessed a total compensation of Rs.3,63,000/-.

2. Mr. Ashish Grover, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased grossly low at Rs.3000/- per month and applied a wrong multiplier of 15 depending on the age of one of the claimants, instead the multiplier should have been applied as per the age of the deceased. It did not provide for prospect of future increase, much less, notional heads of claim viz; loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss to estate. In fact, funeral charges are also assessed at a very low rate i.e. Rs.3000/- only, thus, urges this Court for enhancement of compensation by modifying the award passed by the Tribunal.

3. On the contrary, Ms. Monika Jangra and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has assessed all the heads of claim appropriately and there is no scope for enhancement, thus, urges this Court for confirming the award by dismissing the appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is a definite scope of enhancement as the Tribunal has not met out the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and still later in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54. I will retain the income as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/-, make a deduction of 1/3rd and apply the multiplier of 18 suitable to the age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of one of the dependents, for, it is a settled law that selection of multiplier should be on the basis of the age of the deceased and not of the age of one of the dependents, as laid down by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012) 11 SCC 738. The relevant portion of para 15 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation."

5. The Tribunal also erred in not making a prospect of future increase as per the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh (supra) that in cases where the deceased was self employed or person with fixed wages, the actual income of the deceased must be enhanced for purpose of computation viz; (i) by 50% where his age was below 40 years; (ii) by 30% where he belonged to age group of 40 to 50 years and (iii) by 15% where he was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.

6. In the present case, the age of the deceased was 24 years and he was self employed and therefore, I will provide 50% increase in the actual salary as prospect of future increase. In addition to that, I will provide R