JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 09.03.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Pritpal Sharma in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.07.2005.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that deceased-Pritpal Sharma was 23 years old; was employed at a Petrol Pump and was getting a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. He further contends:

ii) That the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 17.

iii) That the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award as well as postmortem report show that deceased-Pritpal Sharma was 23 years old. A perusal of the award further shows that the deceased was alleged to be employed with M/s Jai Shiv Shankar Filling Station, Mehlan but no person from the said firm has been examined, and as such, it cannot be said that the deceased was actually employed with the said Filling Station. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month without taking into consideration the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident, which is Rs.3,000/- per month, in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker in the State of Punjab, therefore, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.3000/- per month.

ii). A perusal of the award further shows that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 instead of 17. Further perusal of the award shows that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure instead of % of the income. Moreover, no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. With regard to grant of future prospects in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 349, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that "just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place."

In view of the above judgment, the appellants/claimants are also