JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. The present order would dispose of two appeals in which challenge is to the same award dated 23.10.2017. The first appeal has been filed by the insurance company i.e., FAO-174-2018 in which prayer has been made for reduction of the amount awarded and a plea has been raised that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the driving licence produced by the claimants as Ex.P3 is fake. The second appeal i.e., FAO-5507-2018 has been filed by the claimants, who are the parents of deceased Ravinder and are seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants have been awarded Rs.10,49,000/- by the Tribunal along with interest on account of death of Ravinder, which had occurred in a motor vehicle accident. The aspect that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver has not been disputed before this Court and only two questions arise for consideration in the present two appeals which are, whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced or to be reduced and whether the driver was holding a valid, effective driving licence and thus, the contest is only to issues no.2 and 3 and not to issue no.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal has not given the benefit of future prospects and since the deceased was 25 years of age, thus, additional 40% of the salary assessed should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of future prospects. It is submitted that the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 11 by taking into consideration the age of the parents, whereas it is a matter of settled law that it is the age of the deceased which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying multiplier and thus, multiplier of 18 should have been applied. It is submitted that as per settled law, amount on accounts of funeral expenses and loss of estate should be Rs.18,000/- each and on account of loss of consortium should be Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 2) as there are two claimants. It is argued that even the salary which has been assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.14,000/- is inadequate, as it is proved beyond doubt that the deceased had appeared in final semester examination of three year diploma course in mechanical engineering and the certificate, certifying the said fact, issued by Shree Shyam Polytechnic, Narnaul was duly exhibited as Ex.P7. It is submitted that it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was Junior Engineer in Sanko Gosei JRG Automative India Private Ltd., Plot no.16, Sector 5, HSIDC, Bawal, District Rewari and in the said circumstances, the salary of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.25,000/- per month and in support of his arguments, learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandasami & Ors. vs. Lindabriyal & Anr. reported as 2023 ACJ 1653.

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, has submitted that even as per the case set up by the claimants, it was stated that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.19,000/- per month on account of his working as a Junior Engineer in Sanko Gosei JRG Automative India Private Ltd. It is submitted that thus, the claimants cannot claim more than the said amount. It is further argued that no document has been produced on record to show that the said deceased was working. It is also submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the claimants is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case, the deceased therein had completed B.Tech course and had also done a course in computer applications, whereas in the present case the deceased is stated to have done diploma course in mechanical engineering, which cannot be compared to B.Tech course as well as course in computer applications. It is submitted that at any