Compensation in fatal accidents for individuals on fixed salaries aged 40-50 requires a 25% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 15 if under 41. Consortium damages must be awarded separately to each eligible dependent (spouse, children, and parents).

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], have preferred the present appeal, assailing an award dated 19.12.2012, passed by the Tribunal in MACT No. 225/08/10. The proceedings arose from a fatal accident which led to the death of one Mr. Yogesh Chand Sharma. By the impugned award, the appellants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 9,98,160/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. They seek enhancement of the said compensation.

A. FACTS & IMPUGNED AWARD

2. The facts of the case, as narrated in the award, are that on 30.11.2007, the deceased, Mr. Yogesh Chand Sharma, was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8S-AK-3094. At about 12:30 A.M., when he reached S-Block Chowk, Mangol Puri, his motorcycle was hit by a truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-7497 (“offending vehicle”) coming from the side of Machhali Market, Sultan Puri. The offending vehicle struck the motorcycle of the deceased with great force, as a result of which the deceased was thrown onto the road, and the truck came to a halt only after dragging the motorcycle for a considerable distance. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He was first taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and was thereafter shifted to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital, Sushruta Trauma Centre, where he succumbed to his injuries on 05.12.2007. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 40 years and four months of age.

3. The claimants before the Tribunal were the wife and two sons of the deceased (who were minors at the time of the accident). The parents of the deceased were arrayed as respondents No. 4 and 5 before the Tribunal. The driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondents No. 1, 2, and 3.

4. The accident resulted in criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle - Mr. Vijay Singh (Respondent No.1 herein). FIR No. 849/2007, under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered on 30.11.2007 at P.S. Mangol Puri on the basis of the information given by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who was one of the eye-witnesses to the accident.

5. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver, and assessed compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 9,98,160/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under the following heads:

B. SUBMISSIONS

6. I have heard Mr. Santosh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”].

7. Mr. Santosh submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ought to be enhanced on the following grounds:

a. That the Tribunal has erroneously assessed loss of dependency by adding future prospects at the rate of 30%, instead of 50%, and by applying a multiplier of 14, instead of 15 as per the judgment in Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121, [hereinafter, “Sarla Verma”].

b. The Tribunal awarded non-pecuniary damages only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of cons