The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is determined based on the claimant's age at the time of the accident, as per established guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Appellant-Insurance company has filed the instant appeal assailing the award dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra in favour of respondent No.1 confined as regards quantum of compensation.

3. Brief facts that would require notice are that two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') came to be filed as an offshoot from an accident which took place on 27.11.2015. One of the claim petitions was filed by respondent No.1 herein who had suffered injuries in the accident involving truck bearing registration No. HR73-0090 which was insured with the appellant-company. Injured/claimant (respondent No.1) claimed an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs towards compensation. Vide order dated 21.02.2017 the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries to claimants Dilshad, Uttam Sita Ram Kadam and death of Rudra Pratap Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, while driving truck bearing No.HR73-0090 or composite negligence of respondents No. 1 and 4?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom the claimants are entitled to?OPP

3. Whether there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies and respondents No.3 and 6 are not liable to pay any compensation?OPR

4. Relief.

4. Since the scope of the instant appeal has been confined only with regard to quantum of compensation it would not be necessary to advert to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No.1 and 3.

5. As regards issue No.2 the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant on account of the injuries suffered in the accident had incurred a permanent disability to the extent of 61% and as such was entitled to compensation under the heads of disability and loss of earning; medical and other expenses; special diet; transportation; need for attendant as also pain and suffering. The Tribunal further addressed the aspect as to how the disability of the claimant on account of the crush injury on his left hand and left foot would translate into loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability of the claimant as 100%. Based on evidence adduced on record income of the claimant/respondent No.1 was assessed at Rs. 20,046/- per month. Taking date of birth of the claimant as 01.01.1965 multiplier of 13' was applied. The compensation amount was computed by the Tribunal in the following terms:-

" So, in view of all the above, the income of the abovenamed claimant at the time of sustaining injuries can be worked out to be Rs.20,046/-p.m. As such, the per annum income would be Rs.2,40,552 and by multiplying the same with 13', it is Rs.31,27,176/-. By adding 10% to his said income, his total income works out as Rs.34,39,893/-. As his functional disability has been taken as 100%, as such, the amount of compensation payable now comes to Rs.34,39,893/-. It is an admitted fact that though the accident took place on 27.11.2015, but the claimant was paid salary upto 31.10.2017, till vide notice dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P9 his services were terminated by the company. So, the amount of Rs.4,81,104/-, i.e. salary for 24 months @ Rs.20,046/-, is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation calculated. After the said deduction, the amount payable as compensation under this head comes to Rs. 29,58,789/- (Rs.34,39,893/- minus Rs.4,81,104/-).

The above-named claimant has also placed on record documents i.e. medical bills/receipts Ex.P113 to Ex.P198-A amounting to total Rs.1,12,482/-. Though the said medical bills/receipts have not been strictly proved in accordance with law by examining the concerned doctor/chemist, but it is well settled that in such claim petitio