O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation, being dissatisfied with quantum as awarded by the High Court in FAO No. 1427 of 2003 dated 17.09.2019 enhancing the compensation to Rs.18,66,000/- with interest @ 9% as against the compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @

6% awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts in brief leading to this appeal are, the husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants- 2 and 3 Mr. Subodh Chand Jain, the deceased, was proceeding along with others in a car bearing registration Car No. TAC-5436. The tourist bus bearing registration No.KL-01-2295 coming from opposite direction, driven on the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car. As a result, the inmates of the car except Mr. Deepak succumbed at the spot. The claimants being dependents of the Signature Not Verified deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.03.25

12:00:10 IST Reason:

claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The insured and the insurer of both the vehicles namely the vehicle in which Mr. Subodh Chand Jain was travelling and the offending vehicle namely the bus which dashed against the car were arrayed as parties to the Claim Petition. Except the owner of the car in which the deceased was travelling, all others i.e., owner, Driver of the Bus and the Insurance companies of respective vehicles contested the claim petition. The tribunal after framing the issues on the basis of the pleadings awarded a compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum by considering the age of the deceased as 50 years and applying the multiplier of 11 and construing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Though, it was specifically contended by the claimants and documents produced namely income tax returns to prove the income of the deceased, was not considered or in otherwise brushed aside. The Tribunal after noticing all these aspects and taking note of the fact that even after demise of Mr. Subodh Chand Jain, claimants were sufficiently earning and they were also getting rental income, has arrived at a conclusion that claimants were having their own income and were not dependent on the income of the deceased. Even after noticing that the deceased was having a post-graduate diploma in marketing management and advertising, and an MBA from Oxford University. Tribunal also held that the deceased was capable of earning equal to the salary drawn by Class-I officer in India as such determined his earing capacity at Rs.15,000/- per month or Rs.1,80,000/- per annum, accordingly awarded the compensation.

4. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimants pursued their grievance before the High Court. On reappreciation of the evidence that had been tendered before the Tribunal, the High Court retained the income at Rs.15,000/- per month but added 10% towards future prospects and adopting the income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3 i.e. Rs.5,500/- it arrived at a conclusion that loss of income to the dependents was Rs.11,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 13 the loss of income to the dependents was determined at Rs.17,16,000/- (Rs.11,000X12X13). High Court also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses apart from awarding a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of love & affection and consortium and thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.18,66,000/- in substitution to the compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal or in other words enhanced the compensation by Rs.5,16,000/-. Hence This appeal for further enhancement.

5. It is contention of Dr. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants that Tribunal as well as the High Court had completely ignored the fact of deceased having income by way of salary and was also earning commission apart from