The appeal clarifies the method for calculating compensation based on accurate age and future prospects in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shivansh Agarwal alongwith Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 on caveat.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved against the award dated 09.06.2023 passed in Claim Petition No.160 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal South, Lucknow wherein a death case the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,49,454.20 alongwith 7% interest in favour of the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5.

3. Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award is being challenged solely on the ground of quantum. It is urged that the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 50 years whereas the documentary evidence filed by the claimants established that the deceased was 52 years of age and this would materially affect the quantum as the multiplier of 11 was applicable whereas the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 13.

4. It is further urged that the quantum has been affected also for the reason that the Tribunal has taken 25% towards future prospects whereas since the deceased was in permanent employment and considering his age he was entitled for future prospects at the rate of 10%. It is in this backdrop that there is a material change in the quantum which has been ignored by the Tribunal, hence the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the caveator claimants submits that the deceased was 52 years of age but in the post mortem report the age of the deceased was ascertained as 50 years, accordingly the age of 50 was taken upon which 25% was taken as future prospects and therefore the amount as awarded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. Since the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum only and it is the endeavour of the Tribunal to ascertain a fair and a just compensation, accordingly in this view of the matter the award does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Since the only issue in contest between the parties is the quantum, accordingly with the consent of the parties the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself and the appeal is being disposed of accordingly.

7. In order to appreciate the respective contentions. Briefly the facts giving rise to the appeal may be noticed. The claimants, who are the respondents No. 1 to 5 before this Court, filed Claim Petition No. 160 of 2019 with the averments that on 03.02.2019 at around 2.30 P.M. Jai Mangal Sha and Manish Kumar were travelling on motorcycle bearing number UP 32/FE 4531 and were returning home from Queen Marry Hospital at Lucknow. While they had reached Bangla Bazar at the relevant time a DCM truck bearing number UP 53/T-3428 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle as a result both Jai Mangal Sha and Manish Kumar received grievous injuries and unfortunately during the course of the medical treatment Jai Mangal Sha expired.

8. The claim petition came to be contested by the owner of the DCM truck as well as by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle clearly stated that the vehicle was being driven in a safe manner. It also pleaded that the driver had a valid and a subsisting licence and the vehicle was also insured for the period 19.05.2018 till 18.05.2019 and as such on the date of the accident the vehicle was insured.

9. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they had raised a general defence that unless and until it is established that the vehicle was bein