The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment and enhancement of compensation in motor accident cases based on legal principles from relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 11.08.1992, on account of death of Vinod Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 05.05.1991.

Facts Not In Dispute

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 05.05.1991, husband of Ram Murti and father of Kamlesh was going to Delhi from Panipat in Maruti Car bearing No. DDB 3902 being driven by Vinod Kumar. When they reached near village Teha on G.T. Road it was about 3.0 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. HYS8576 being driven by respondent No. 1 Paramjit Singh appeared from the front side in the rash and negligent manner and hit the Maruti car. All the occupants of the said Maruti Car suffered injuries. They were removed to Civil Hospital, Sonipat. Pritpal Husband of Smt. Ram Murti and father of Kamlesh and Prem etc. alongwith Saroj and Vinod Kumar were declared dead. The said offending truck was owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.In this regard, an FIR got registered by the claimants against respondent No.1.

3. Consequently, claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

Compensation Assessed By The Mact

4. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident had been caused on account of negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Claimants deposed that at the time of accident/death, deceased was 24 years of age at and he was earning Rs. 1400/- per month being a Driver.

5. This finding was rightly given on the basis of FIR, and others documentary evidence led by the claimants. Hence, Tribunal assessed the compensation as under:

6. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award, the claimant-appellants have preferred the present appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Reassessed Compensation

8. The fact of accident is admitted and proved. In the present case learned counsel for the appellant has referred the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case Gian Devi verus General Manager , Haryana Rodways, Chandigarh 2004(3) R.C.R (Civil) 199, whereby salary of the deceased being a driver assessed at Rs. 1800/-. He also stated that as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77 , in case of deceased's age of 24 years, multiplier of 18 would be applicable, to calculate the amount of compensation payable to the claimants, but Tribunal took multiplier on lower side. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be reassessed keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and others passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 , wherein the issue with regard to awarding of amount under the conventional heads has been authoritatively decided, while observing as under:-

"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh ref