The correct multiplier for compensation should be based on the deceased's age, not that of the parents, affecting total compensation calculations.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT assailing the award dated 06.01.2012 whereby in C.P. No.162 of 2010, in a death case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 2,62,000/- alongwith 6% interest per annum which was payable by the Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has primarily submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier on the basis of the age of the father of the deceased rather the multiplier should have been on the age of the deceased. It is further urged that neither any amount has been awarded towards future prospects nor the appropriate amount has been granted under the conventional heads.

3. It is further submitted that it was stated that the deceased was engaged in the business of selling milk and was able to earn 6000/- per month but the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as 2500/- which was completely incorrect. It is thus urged that for the aforesaid reason, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced sum as to be determined by this Court.

4. Shri. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances has appropriately calculated the awarded sum and as such considering the facts and circumstances the award does not require any interference especially when substantial justice have been done.

5. The Court has heard Shri. Faisal Ansari, holding brief of Shri. Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and also perused the material on record..

6. The record indicates that the appellants had filed a claim petition bearing No.162 of 2010 stating that on 28.05.2010 at 8.00 A.M. Dharmendra Singh (the deceased) was travelling to go to Faizabad and was sitting on the front seat of Jeep Mahindra Max Number UP 42-T-1019. As the said Jeep had reached Shankargarh Bazar, situate on Faizabad-Ambedkar Nagar Road, the Jeep driver collided with a DCM Truck bearing Number UP 43-T-0938. In the said accident Dharmendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and though he was taken to the district hospital, Faizabad, but he succumbed to his injuries.

7. In the claim petition which was contested, the Tribunal framed four issues and it returned a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Max Jeep UP-42-T-1019. It also found that the vehicle was duly insured and thereafter the Tribunal went on to notice that the age of the deceased was 27 years and since he was engaged in the business of selling milk but the same could not be adequately proved, hence it took a sum of 2500/- as monthly income and thereafter deducting 1/3 towards the expenses, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and thereafter added a sum of 2000/- as funeral expenses and a total sum of 2,62,000/- alongwith 6% interest per annum was awarded.

8. Considering the submissions of the respective parties and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the claimant's father. It is now well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the multiplier is to be adopted on the age of the deceased and not his parents (see Sunita Tokas and another v. New India Insurance Company (2019) 20 SCC 688 and (2020) 12 SCC page 645, Kunjan Sadana and another v. Mahesh Kumar). Thus apparently, there is an error in the award while making the calculation. This Court further finds that the deceased w