ORDER

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Gwalior, in Claim Case No.124/2010 and 123/2010 on 04.03.2010, the appellants-claimants have preferred these two appeals which are being disposed of by this common order.

In brief, the facts of the case are that on 19.03.2009, deceased Sonu along with deceased Nirpat Singh were going by motorcycle to Mehgaon. From front side offending Bus No.M.P.07P.0277 came driven by the driver rash and negligent manner and dashed the aforesaid motorcycle. Due to this accident, both the persons Nirpat and Sonu got serious injuries. They were brought to Mehgaon Hospital, where Sonu died. After the accident, report was lodged by father of deceased Ganesh at Police Station Mehgaon. On his report offence under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of IPC bearing Crime No.51/09 was registered. Nirpat was referred to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. On the next day at 9 A.M. he died.

At the time of accident, Sonu was aged about 22 years. Nirpat was 29 years of age. Claimants of MACC No.124/2010 are mother, father, sister and brother of Sonu. Claimants of MACC No.123/2010 are wife, daughters, mother, father and brother of deceased Nirpat. At the time of accident, Sonu was an employee in Medical shop and getting Rs.5000/- per month by way of salary. Beside this, he was perusing B.Forma course. Nirpat was a skilled mason and doing work of marble laying in the construction. He earned Rs.7,500/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of Sonu as Rs.3000/- and Nirpat as Rs.2600/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/- for the claimants of deceased Sonu. As far as the claimants of deceased Nirpat is concerned, by taking multiplier of 17 passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,16,800/-

Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that while assessing the compensation, learned Tribunal erred in calculating the income amount of Sonu and Nirpat. As far as Sonu, multiplier should be 18 in place of 15.

Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company in MACC No.124/10, Shri B.K. Agrawal, Advocate agreed to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the claimants that multiplier should be 18 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Learned Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.3000/- despite claimants of deceased Sonu pleaded in his application that by doing job in medical store, he used to get Rs.5000/- per month. In support of his contention, he has adduced the evidence of owner of the medical shop Nathuram Sharma. She has stated that he is having Medical shop at Mehgaon. Deceased was working in his shop. He used to get Rs.5000/- per month. Ex.P-40-C and Ex.P41-C are licence regarding medical shop. In this regard, they have adduced pay certificate issued by Nathuram which is Ex.P-

21. As per Ex.P-2, deceased was used to get Rs.5000/- per month. During examination Nathuram denied that deceased Sonu was not working in his shop. Beside this no other pertinent question was put to him so that his evidence would be disbelieved. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence.

In the case of deceased Sonu claimants have produced best evidence which they can regarding his pay that he was getting Rs.5000/- per month by doing work in the shop of Nathuram Sharma's Medical shop. Learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/-. It should be Rs.5000/- per month and multiplier should be 18. Beside this as per the law laid down in the National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) , he is also entitled for 40% future prospects.

As far as claimants in MACC 123/2010 is concerned, the claimants of deceased Nirpat pleaded in the a