The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation and the application of the appropriate multiplier based on the age of the deceased as per the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

Though the appeal is listed for orders but the learned counsel representing the parties agree that the matter may be decided on merit.

2. The challenge in the present appeal from order, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is to the award dated 04.08.2017, as it was rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.18 of 2016, “Bachan Singh and another Vs. Indrajeet Singh and Others”.

3. The precise facts are that, the claimants have contended in their claim petition, that their brother Surat Singh, while he was travelling on 18.02.2010 from Chunakhal to Ramnagar, near Chunakhal, the bus bearing Registration No.UA04-7975, in which he was working as a conductor, met with an accident due to which Mr. Surat Singh met with the sad demise.

4. According to the case of the claimants, that he was immediately taken for treatment to Ramnagar, where he was reported to have died during the course of the treatment.

5. It is contended by the claimants, that on the date of the accident, he was of about 20 years of age and since, owing to the engagement, in which he was involved, that is being a conductor of the bus, it was contended by the claimants that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from it, he was also paid an additional amount of Rs.50 per day to meet out his day-to-day expenses. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid foundation of income accruing to the deceased, the claimants have raised the claim that they may be awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.17,60,000/-.

6. The claim, thus raised by the claimants/appellants herein, was opposed by the respondents. Ultimately, the claim petition have been decided by the impugned award whereby the multi-faceted arguments, which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants while putting a question to the impugned award of 04.08.2017, are being dealt with.

7. Firstly, he submits that the foundation of determining the notional income, as to be Rs.36,000/- per annum, which has been taken as to be the basis for payment of the compensation, was bad in the eyes of law, for the reason being, that it was the claimants’ case, that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, at least the determining of the compensation should have been made @ Rs.4,000/- per month, on the basis of its being multiplied by 12, in order to determine the annual income accruing to the deceased.

8. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants argues that the determination of compensation, which has been based on the notional income, taking it as to be Rs.36,000/- per annum, the claimants would not be entitled for future prospects also.

9. Thirdly, learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal erred at law by applying the multiplier of 5, which was determined on the basis of the age of the claimants, who were 72 years and 66 years of age respectively. Hence, he contends that the multiplier, which has been applied by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, would be bad in the eyes of law, because it is a settled principle of law that the multiplier, if at all, it is to be applied, it has to be applied, on the basis of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, as reported in AIR 2009 S.C. 3104.

10. Apart from it, the multiplier has to be determined on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the claimant.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. As far as the first two issues are concerned, first, pertaining to taking the notional income as to be Rs.36,000/- per annum and second, pertaining to non-grant of the benefit of future prospects, when the compensation itself is determined, on the basis of the notional income, these are the issues, which have not been pressed by the