The court established that future prospects must be included in compensation calculations, adjusting the notional income and multiplier accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, Sri. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.5. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.3 & 4.

2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Hamirpur, in M.A.C.P. No.69 of 2003 (Ram Kishor v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others), by which compensation of Rs. 1,67,640/- along with 6% interest has been awarded to the claimant-appellant on account of injuries received by him.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimant-appellant that a very meagre amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant. The claimant-appellant had fully proved that he was engaged as Mason (Rajmistri) and had earned Rs. 150-180 per day and there was no evidence adduced by the respondents in rebuttal and the Claims Tribunal had erred in calculating the compensation accepting Rs. 15,000/- per annum as notional income of the claimant-appellant. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects whereas the claimant is entitled for 40% of his income as future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company has not disputed the aforesaid legal position. He submits that the Claims Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier of 17 whereas the age of the injured was 32 years at the time of accident and the multiplier would be 16 in view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677.

5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It was the case of the claimant-appellant before the Claims Tribunal that the injured claimant was engaged as Mason (Rajmistri) and had earned Rs. 150-180 per day. The Claims Tribunal had erred in accepting the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.), has provided the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The claimant-appellant is also entitled for 40% future prospects as the age of the injured was below 40 years at the time of accident.

7. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :-

 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimant is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,67,640/- to Rs. 4,43,340/-. The New India Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.5 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs. 2,75,700/- along with 6% interest from the date of judgment of Claims Tribunal i.e. 31.07.2007 to the claimant-appellant, within two months from today.

9. No order as to costs.