The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of specific legal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to calculate compensation in road accident claims, emphasizing the principle of preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The award dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'the Tribunal') has been assailed by the legal heirs of Partap (deceased) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

2. In the afore-said appeal the insurer of car bearing registration No. DL- 8-CM-6928 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') has filed cross-objections along-with applications seeking condonation of delay of 162 days in filing and 20 days in re-filing the cross-objections.

3. The facts emanating from the record are on 23.06.2010, Partap was going to his office at village Uchani on bicycle. On his way near Zhilmil Dhaba on G.T. Road, his cycle was hit by offending vehicle. As a result of the impact, he fell down and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Karnal where he was declared dead. FIR No. 395, dated 23.06.2010 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal on the statement of Dalip (PW-2).

4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was filed. The Tribunal after considering the facts and on appreciating the evidence adduced, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,24,600/- along with interest @7.5% per annum. As the claimants got compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,50,304/- under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules'), the said amount i.e. Rs. 15,50,304/- was deducted and the claimants were found entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 2,74,296/-.

5. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the date of birth of the deceased was proved to be as 28.02.1965. His age was 45 years at the time of accident. He was working as Beldar in CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Uchani (Karnal). His salary was proved as Rs. 12,000/- per month. 30% future prospects were awarded; 1 /4th deduction for self-expenses was made and multiplier of 13 was applied.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident and the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 instead of 14. His grievance is that only Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded under the conventional heads. No other issue has been raised.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the award and resisted any further enhancement.

9. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants deserve acceptance.

10. In consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 14 is to be applied, as the deceased falls in the age group of 41 to 45.

11. Having due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 4 RCR (Civil) 1009 , claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15000/- each for funeral expenses and for loss of estate. Further an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the widow for loss of consortium.

12. In view of afore-said discussion, the compensation is re-calculated as under: