The court recalculated compensation based on statutory guidelines and relevant employment wage standards.

1. By this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , the appellants have challenged the award of II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwani dated 2.5.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 370 of 2018 and have sought enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. The appellants - claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal with the plea that on 7.10.2018 when Mahendra was going on his motor cycle, the accident was caused by motor cycle No. MP 46 - MD 6224 driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1 in which Mahendra had received grievous head injuries and had died during treatment at District Hospital, Barwani. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 27,00,000 was claimed.

3. The respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent No. 2 insurance company by filing the reply before the Tribunal had denied liability and taken the plea of violation of policy conditions.

5. The Tribunal by permitting the parties to lead evidence and after examining the same has found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No. MP 46 - MD 6224 by the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal further found that Mahendra had died on account of the injuries received in the accident and that there was no violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal further assessed the age of the deceased between 18-20 years and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000. Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards the self - expenses and after applying the multiplier of 18 and adding 40 per cent towards future prospects, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,09,600. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 12,64,600.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased and that in terms of the circular issued by the Labour Officer, Barwani dated 7.4.2018 the daily wages for skilled worker was Rs. 7,325 during the relevant period.

7. As against this, the learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the impugned award.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the appellant had deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000 per month, but no document in support of which was produced. The Tribunal had noted that the deceased was about 20 years of age and was a labourer, therefore, considering the minimum wages and dearness allowance for the relevant period, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000. No notification / circular of the concerned Labour Officer was taken note of by the Tribunal while mentioning the daily wages of Rs. 6,000. The circular dated 7.4.2018 issued by the Labour Officer, Barwani applicable for the period from 1.4.2018 to 30.9.2018 produced by the appellants reveals that the monthly wages on the basis of daily wages along with dearness allowance fixed by the concerned Labour Officer was Rs. 7,325. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income on the basis of the said circular. The Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting 1/3rd towards self expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 and adding 40 per cent towards the future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,325 x 12 - 1/3 + 40 per cent x 18 = Rs. 14,76,720. In terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs. 70,000 under the other he