The court established that the multiplier for compensation must reflect the deceased's age and future earning potential, ensuring all relevant compensation heads are adequately addressed.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide award dated 01.03.2012.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs. 5,379/- per month and 50% deduction was applied correctly, however, multiplier of 13' has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been 18' keeping in view the age of the deceased being 23 years at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' and further that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. In support of her contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, the Tribunal has though rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,379/- per month and also correctly applied deduction to the extent of 50%, however, a multiplier of 13' has wrongly been applied and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 18' would be applicable keeping in view the age of the deceased being 23 years at the time of the accident. Further, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants (parents of the deceased) would also be entitled to Rs. 48,000/- each (Rs. 40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :