JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. As requested, the matter is taken up after lunch break.

2. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 16.7.2001 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.177 of 1999 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.2,77,200 has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Krishanjit Sood in a motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-03-7939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“i) Whether the respondent No.2 while driving bus No.HR-03- 7939 rashly and negligently caused accident on 17.1.1999 resulting into the death of Krishanjit Sood? OPA.

ii) To what amount of compensation, applicants are entitled, if so, from whom? OPA 

iii) Whether claim application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties? OPR.

iv) Relief.

4. The parties led their respective evidence.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- as compensation to the claimants No.1 and 2, on account of death of Krishanjit Sood along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 and 2 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. No future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased and since deceased was 59 years of age and was a pensioner, 15% future prospects should have been added to the monthly income. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal after deducting one third towards personal expenses has applied mutliplier of 7, whereas multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied to the loss of dependancy. Learned counsel next contended that no compensation has been awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and the compensation is thus liable to be enhanced suitably. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121- Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680-National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in