ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by 4th Additional MACT, Fast Track Court, Shivpuri in Claim Case No.52/2009 whereby MACT has awarded an amount of Rs. 54,270/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimant for the injuries suffered in a vehicle accident.

2 . The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 1.6.2009 deceased Ashok Jatav along with his wife Harkuwar and one Badri was going on motorcycle from Manopur to Bus-stand Kailaras. Before Jagatpur driver of truck bearing No.UP 78 AT 3812 by driving the said truck rashly & negaligently came from the side of Shivpuri and dashed the motorcycle of Ashok Jatav, as a result of which Ashok Jatav died on the spot and Harkuwar and Badri suffered grievous injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was 20 years of age at the time of accident and was working as labourer and was earning Rs.100- 125/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has discussed the evidence of Dr. S.N.Bhilwar (PW-5) in para 18 of the award and as per his evidence appellant suffered 44.6% permanent disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.54,270/- for pain & suffering on account of grievous hurt and permanent disability and Rs.9,270/- for medical expenses on the ground that deceased was a student of class 10th. However, Ramlal (PW-6) has clearly stated in his cross-examination that appellant Badri was studying as a private student and he was doing labour work with him. Therefore, his income should have been considered as Rs.3,000/- and as he suffered 45% permanent disability, therefore, his loss of annual income would be Rs.16,200/-. He is also entitled for future prospect as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680. In view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC3104 looking to the age of appellant as 20 years multiplier of 18 would be applicable in the present case. Therefore, requests to enhance the compensation amount accordingly.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company did not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

However, he submits that since the dictum of Pranay Sethi (supra) has been passed in the year 2017, therefore, interest upto 2017 should not be awarded.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, in the considered opinion of this Court, assuming the notional income of the deceased at the time of the accident and other facts and circumstances available on record and evidence adduced by both the parties, it would be appropriate to enhance the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- in lump-sum in favour of the appellant/claimant in addition to the award already passed in his favour with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

6 . In the result, this M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,25,000/- in addition to the award passed in favour of the claimant with a direction that on the enhanced amount interest @ 6% would be calculated. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE ms/-