ORDER

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as Ms. Sujata Srivatava, holding brief of Shri Nilish Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The instant appeal for enhancement of the awarded sum has been preferred under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in C.P. No.157 of 2004 (Smt. Raj Kumari and another v. Nideshak, Balrampur Chinni Mill and another), wherein a sum of Rs.84,500/- along with 6% interest per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned award submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum inasmuch as a 22 years old person had died though there was ample evidence to indicate that he was plying a rickshaw and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per month, yet a notional income has been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side. It is further submitted that even otherwise if notional income was to be taken even then it ought not to have been less than Rs.36,000/- per annum.

4. It has also been pointed out that another error which has been committed by the Tribunal is in adopting the multiplier as applicable. It is urged that it is now well settled that the multiplier is to be applied on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents. In the instant case while adopting the multiplier, the age of the mother of the deceased has been taken into consideration whereas admittedly the age of the deceased was 22 years and the appropriate multiplier ought to have been of 18.

5. It is further submitted that the appellants have not granted the non-pecuniary benefit nor there has been any provision for future prospects, which is contrary to the settled legal principles which have been laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC Page 680. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the award dated 15.10.2005 requires modification and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Shri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while opposing the aforesaid submissions has submitted that insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, there are contradictory statements in the evidence and as such it was not a case where the appellants were able to establish the income of the deceased.

7. It has further been pointed out that the clear case of the appellants was that the deceased was working in a school and that fact apart he also had an additional income by plying rickshaw. From the admission dictated from the testimony of the claimant's witness, it was clear that the deceased was not working in any school nor there was any evidence to establish the said fact. Even insofar as the plying of rickshaw is concerned, the same was doubtful in the aforesaid circumstances. Also noticing the date of the accident, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum which is just and proper.

8. Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 could not dispute that insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the appropriate multiplier in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) ought to have been of 18 though he further submitted that so far as the grant of non-pecuniary benefits, the same has already been provided in terms of the award delivered and, ther