The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the structured formula for calculating compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the re-calculation of compensation based on the assessment of various components including monthly income, multipliers, and additional expenses.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This order shall dispose of FAO Nos. 1242, 1243 and 1559 of 2005, as these arise from one and the same accident. The appeals arise from three separate awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short "the Tribunal").

2. The record of these appeals were burnt and from the salvaged record of the partially burnt cases, the same were reconstructed subject to all just exceptions and further verification.

3. An accident took place on 28.08.2001. Jasbir Singh alias Jagsir Singh, Pahara Singh and Darshan Singh were passengers in jeep bearing registration No. PB-04E-3232, being driven by Baljit Singh-respondent No. 1. At about 3.30 PM, when the jeep reached near village Jida Romana bus stand, one Tahli tree fell on the jeep. As a result of this, the above named passengers lost their lives.

4. Three separate claim petitions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") were filed by legal heirs of the deceased persons.

5. The Tribunal awarded compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

6. The present appeals have been filed for enhancement of compensation.

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

FAO No. 1242 of 2005

8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award arguing that deceased Jasbir Singh alias Jagsir Singh was aged about 50 years and was an agriculturist. He was survived by three un-married daughters, two of whom were minor and old parents. His contention is that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,400/- per month is on lower side. He argued that the multiplier of 12 has wrongly been applied. Learned counsel further argued that no amount has been awarded for loss of estate and no future prospects have been added.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer defended the award and argued that no case has been made out for enhancement of compensation.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that future prospects should have been added cannot be accepted. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. In proceedings under Section 163-A of the Act, the structured formula for calculating compensation has been given in Second Schedule to the Act. In the said Schedule, there is no provision for adding future prospects.

11. The multiplier of 12 has wrongly been applied. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 13 is to be applied. The appellants are entitled to Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. The fact that the deceased was an agriculturist by profession has not been seriously disputed. Keeping in view this fact, the monthly earning of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 3,300/-.

The compensation is re-calculated as under:-

Monthly income	Rs. 3,300/-
1/3rd deduction for self expenses	Rs. 1,100/-
Monthly dependency	Rs. 2,200/-
Applying multiplier of 13 (2,200 x 12 x 13)	Rs. 3,43,200/-
Loss of estate	Rs. 2,500/-
Funeral expenses	Rs. 2,000/-
Total	Rs. 3,47,700/-

12. The award dated 01.12.2004 passed in MACT No. 58 of 11.09.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded of Rs. 2,32,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 3,47,700/-.

13. The appellants would be entitled to enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.

14. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

FAO No. 1243 of 2005

15. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award by arguing that deceased Pahara Singh was aged about 53 years and was an agriculturist. He was survived by two sons and widow. His contention is that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,400/- per month is on lower side. He argued that the multiplier of 10 has wrongly been applied. Learned counsel further argued that no amount has been awarded for loss