Point of law: All the judgments apply retrospectively except otherwise provided. It is well established principle of law that the principle of prospective operation of over ruling of judgment, does not apply except where it is specifically mentioned. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is normally assumed to be the law from inception. Prospective operation is only exception to this general rule. It is trite law that where the question of law has been settled by the Courts, then it has to held that the said question of law was in existence right from the first day.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"), vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2014 passed in Claim Petition No.134 of 2013 (Dayal and Others Vs. Sanjeev Batra and Others).

3. Facts, in brief, as pleaded in claim petition before the Tribunal, are that the deceased Heera Lal, who was 20 years old at the time of accident, on 07.03.2013 at about 06:30 AM while he was waiting for some vehicle to reach Lucknow at a place which is situated at Lucknow-Raebareli National Highway near village Mastipur, P.S.-Nigoha, Lucknow, was hit by Vehicle Tata Ace bearing Registration No. UP-32 CZ-5364 and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and the driver of the Tata Ace was driving it rash and negligently, are not in dispute. The plea that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-per month was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the basis of notional income i.e. Rs.3,000/-per month, awarded the compensation. No amount towards future prospects was provided by the Tribunal. Under the head(s) of miscellaneous expenses and loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- each.

4. For the purposes of adjudication of the claim, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

^^1- D;k fnukad 07&3&2013 dks le; djhc 06%30 cts lqcg y[kuÅ jk;cjsyh jktekxZ ij] xzke eLrhiqj ds lkeus Fkkuk fuxksgka] y[kuÅ esa VkVk ,sl okgu la[;k ;w0ih0&32@lh0tsM0&5364 ds pkyd us okgu ds bUrtkj esa [kM+s ghjk yky dks VDdj ekj nh ftlls mls dkQh pksVsa vkbZ ftlds QyLo:i ?kVukLFky ij gh mldh e`R;q gks x;h\

2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; VkVk ,sl okgu la[;k ;w0ih0&32@lh0tsM0&5364 foi{kh la[;k&2] chek dEiuh ls chfer Fkh\

3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; VkVk ,sl okgu la[;k ;w0ih0&32@lh0tsM0&5364 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh\

4- D;k ;kphx.k {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa /kujkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] ;fn gk¡ rks fdruh vkSj fdlls\**

5. There is no dispute regarding the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue nos. 1 to 3. The issue no. 4 which relates to grant of compensation is in question before this Court.

6. While pressing the present appeal for enhancement of compensation, the first issue raised is to the effect that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier. Elaborating on this aspect, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied after taking note of the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years at the time of accident, however, in the present case the multiplier of 11 has been applied by the Tribunal after considering the age of the father of the deceased. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others; reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 ACJ 2700. Relevant paragraph 59 reads as under:-

59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (201