1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 3.11.1999.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute the same are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity. The Tribunal in the present case awarded the following compensation:

3. Learned counsel for the claimants - appellants would contend that though the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed as Rs.3,614 per month, however, deduction of 1/4th and a multiplier of '15' have wrongly been applied. Further, no addition has been made towards loss of future prospects and no amount has been awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium'. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC); Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd., 2021 ACJ 2685 (SC).

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - insurance company would contend that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded and hence there is no scope of any further enhancement.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,614 per month. However, a deduction of 1/4th has wrongly been applied. In the present case, there are 7 claimants and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a deduction of 1/5th would be applicable. The deceased in the present case was 30 years of age at the time his death and hence, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of '17' ought to have been applied. Further, no addition has been made towards loss of future prospects. The deceased in the present case was 30 years of age and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40 per cent ought to have been made towards loss of future prospects. Further, no amount has been awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' and hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimants - appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000 (Rs. 15,000 + 20 per cent increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000 (Rs. 15,000 + 20 per cent increase) towards funeral expenses and further to an amount of Rs.48,000 each (Rs. 40,000 + 20 per cent increase) towards loss of consortium.

7. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under:

8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimants - appellants as directed by the Tribunal.

9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the claimants are disposed of in the above terms. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Orders accordingly.