JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 21.12.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.85 of 2003 decided by the MACT, Narnaul (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,28,400/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants/appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicle accident.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:-

“1. Whether Ashok Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ-06E-1757 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount as compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and genuine driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect?

4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with the respondent No.1 to 3? OPR4

5. Relief.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,28,400/- as compensation to the claimants/ appellants, on account of death of Ashok Kumar along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

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

6. 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.1 while driving the offending truck No.RJ-06E/1757, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.4 and they 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.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.2,28,400/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was 26/27 years of age and multiplier of 13 has been applied whereas multiplier of 17 should have been awarded. No compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference in the said award is called for and appeal in hand be dismissed.

9. The term `just compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and it has been held that while assessing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily,