The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering factors such as the deceased's income, future prospects, loss of dependency, and other heads of compensation.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the award dated 16.08.2010, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter called the "Tribunal"), whereby in the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short-the "Act") the appellants-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,88,000/- on account of death of Vijay Kumar in a roadside accident which took place on 18.10.2009.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of award of compensation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

4. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, through he had four dependents. He further contended that no future prospects have been awarded towards the income of the deceased. Wrong multiplier has been applied. Very less amount has been awarded towards the conventional heads. No amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection to the minor child and parents of the deceased. Thus, he contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is highly inadequate.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant heads for grant of amount of compensation. Thus, he contended that there is no scope of any further enhancement in the amount of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal.

6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

7. As per the case of the claimants, deceased Vijay Kumar was earning 65,000/- per month and he was working in batching plant in a company at Kuwait. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence determined the income of the deceased to be 15,000/- per month, which could not be seriously disputed at the time of arguments by learned counsel for the appellants in the absence of any documentary evidence with respect to the employment of the deceased. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per month.

8. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any future prospects to the income of the deceased. The deceased was working abroad in a company, so it was certain that his income was bound to increase with the passage of time. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death, so 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be added towards future prospects. The total income of the deceased comes to Rs.22,500/- per month (Rs.15,000 + Rs.7500) i.e. Rs. 2,70,000/- per annum.

9. The deceased had four dependents namely Smt. Sanjna Rani his widow, Rana Chander Bhan minor son and his parents. The learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. In view of the number of the dependent family members, 1/4th of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the remainder comes to Rs.2,02,500/- (Rs.2,70,000 - Rs.67,500). The learned Tribunal has also applied the wrong multiplier of 14. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death, so multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.36,45,000/- (Rs.2,02,500 x 18).

10. In addition to that Smt. Sanjna Rani, the widow of deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, appellant-claimant Rana Chander Bhan the minor son of the deceased shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.