The court established that multiplier for compensation depends on the accurate assessment of the deceased's age and clarified that family pension cannot be included as income for loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred present appeal being aggrieved by award dated 09.07.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby compensation of Rs.77,24,440/- has been awarded in favour of respondents-claimants. Claimants-respondents i.e. wife, children and parents of deceased Satheesh Kumar had sought compensation on account of untimely demise of Satheesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in accident dated 02.10.2020 caused by offending vehicle bearing No.DL 1LAD 9772.

2. Following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the accident in question resulting in death Satheesh Kumar M took place on 02.10.2020 at 02:30 a.m. in the area of village Khanpur Kolian near Mahindra Agency on GT Road, Police Station Sadar Thanesar (Kurukshetra) due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bolero bearing registration No.DL1L-AD-9772 by respondent No.1 & owned by respondent No.2 or due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus bearing registration No.PB-01A-8009 by the deceased Satheesh Kumar M himself & owned by respondent No.4 or due to their contributory negligence? OPP

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

3. Whether respondents No.1 and the deceased were not having valid and effective driving licences at the time of accident and there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies by respondent No.1 and 2 as well as by the deceased and respondent No.5. Thus, respondents No.3 and 5 are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners? OPR-3 & 5

4. Relief.”

3. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in favour of claimants. Issue No.3 was decided against respondent No.3 and total compensation of Rs.77,24,440/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realization was granted vide impugned award.

4. Appellant is primarily aggrieved by quantum of compensation and has challenged the quantification of compensation as has been done by Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellant has challenged quantification on following grounds:-

i. That age of deceased has been taken wrongly to be 40 years whereas from the evidence led by claimants- respondents, it is clearly made out that deceased was aged 41 years 06 months at the time of his death and therefore, Tribunal has wrongly awarded multiplier of 15 instead of 14 and has also wrongly awarded future prospects @ 40% instead of 25 % as mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; 2009(3) RCR Civil (77) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009

ii. That Tribunal has erred in adding pension being received by deceased while determining his income for the purpose of quantification of loss of dependency on account of death in the accident.

Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vishavjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13442 of 2020 decided on 21.05.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants-respondents has vehemently argued that age has been rightly taken as 40 years and therefore the multiplier as well as future prospects have been rightly granted. He further argued that family pension has to be added in the income of deceased for calculating loss of dependency and has placed reliance upon judgments passed by this Court i