JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. Vide this common order, both the aforesaid appeals are being decided as the same arise out of a common award dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for brevity, “the Tribunal”). FAO No.5866 of 2012 has been filed by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on account of death of their son Abdul Gani in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 06.10.2009, whereas FAO No.4972 of 2012 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and thus liable to be reduced.

FACTS

[2]. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.2,47,600/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO No.5866 of 2012 for reference.

FACTS

[3]. Appellants being the parents of deceased Abdul Gani, instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 06.10.2009, allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1- driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, passed the award dated 08.05.2012 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.

[4]. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred FAO No.4972 of 2012 primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the insurer despite the fact that the cheque issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured and the policy was cancelled much prior to the date of accident after due intimation to the insured as well as the concerned Registering Authority, and thus the impugned award deserved to be set aside to that extent. The claimants, on the other hand, filed FAO No.5866 of 2012 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the loss suffered by them. Both the appeals, thus, call for determination of the liability of the insurer as well as the justness and adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the light of the settled legal position.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was wholly inadequate and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 11 despite the deceased being 20 years of age, whereas in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,” reported as 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the appropriate multiplier of 18 was required to be applied. He further argued that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at a lower figure and no addition towards future prospects was granted, though the unrebutted evidence on record established his monthly earnings and the benefit of increase in income, even in the case of a daily wager, was permissible in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882.

[5.1]. Learned counsel submitted that the