The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier for calculating compensation and the awarding of compensation under conventional heads.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 1.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. This was burnt case and has been reconstructed from the salvaged record and copies supplied by counsels subject to all just exceptions.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:

On 9.6.1996 Jagmail Singh alias Bhola Singh aged 35 years, met with a motor vehicular accident. He was driving Tata 709 Canter bearing registration No. PB-13-D-6391. He was struck by rashly and negligently truck bearing registration No.U.S.D.-491 (for short 'the offending vehicle'). As a result of the accident, he suffered injuries and was taken to Civil Hosptial, Narwana. He was referred to PGIMS Rohtak but he was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he succumbed to injuries.

4. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was field by widow and three children of the deceased.

5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

6. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book and record.

8. There is no dispute by either of the parties on the facts of the case. The income assessed is also not disputed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was 35 years of age and the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 14. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the conventional heads. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company defended the award but could not raise any serious objections, in view of the settled proposition of law, with regard to multiplier and awarding the compensation under conventional heads.

10. The Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 14 for deceased aged 35 years but as per decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. The amount of compensation is re-calculated by applying the multiplier of 16 and adopting the annual dependency as assessed by the Tribunal.

2000 x 12= 24000

less 1/3 self expenses 24000 – 8000 = 16000.

16000 x 16 = 2,56,000.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under conventional heads, has a substance and deserves acceptance.

12. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Asha Verman and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015 (4) SCC (Civil) 767, held as under:

“17. Further, the High Court has erred in awarding only Rs. 5,000/- each towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. We award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate according to the principles laid down in the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2014 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 876: 2014 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 112 : 2014 (5) Scale 479, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170; 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.).659; (2013) 9 SCC 54.

18. Further, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the appellant-children towards loss of love and affection due to the loss of their father(deceased) as per the decision of this Court in the case of Juju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 817 : 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 364 : (2013)9 SCC 166. Further, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to each of the appellant-parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case