Bharatpur ----Appellants vs Mohammed Shahid Khan S/o Mohammed Siddique Khan,

: Mr. Lakshaya Kumar Sharma for Mr. L.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amarnath Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/05/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL):

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 06.03.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) in claim petition No.79/2015 (06/2015) whereby [2025:RJ-JP:20822] (2 of 5) [CMA-2143/2017] the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.43,35,390/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2014, an accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the respondent No.1 while driving Car No. RJ-14-C-3544, and as a result of which Virendra Kumar died on the spot, who was a Govt. Teacher, posted as Headmaster in the Government Upper Primary School, Baheliya Chhitorgarh, earning Rs.45,201/- per month. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased- Virendra Kumar, have filed the claim petition, which came to be partly allowed, and while calculating the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.45,201/-, and the age of the deceased to be 51 years, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.43,35,390/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the age of deceased to be 51 years whereas as per PAN Card available on record, date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 20.07.1964, thus, on the date of accident the age of the deceased was 50 years 3 months and 24 days. He further submits that no amount towards future prospects was awarded. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be modified, and compensation should be enhanced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company supported the award and stated that the impugned order had been passed after due consideration of the facts.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record.

6. From the record of the case, it is evident that the learned Court below has considered the age of the deceased to be 51 [2025:RJ-JP:20822] (3 of 5) [CMA-2143/2017] years and therefore, applied the multiplier of 11 while determining the compensation, whereas from the PAN Card available on record, the date of birth of the deceased was 20.07.1964, thus, on the date of accident i.e. 13.11.2014, the age of the deceased comes to 50 years 3 months and 24 days.

7. Since on the date of accident, the deceased was aged for 50 years 3 months 24 days and had not attained the age of 51, therefore, according to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. decided on 15.04.2009 reported in 2009 (2) SCC (CRI) 1002, multiplier of '13' ought to have been awarded as against multiplier of '11' awarded by the Tribunal.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered a similar controversy in the matter of Shashikala & Ors. vs. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. reported in (2015) 9 CC 150 while selecting the multiplier of the deceased who has completed the age of 45 years held as follows:- "17. In so far as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.06.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained."

9. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and as Veerendra Kumar had only completed 50 years 3 months and 24 days, and had not attained the age of 51, the relevant multiplier to be applied is '13' and not '11' as wrongly applied by the Tribunal. Hence, I modify the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:20822] (4 of 5) [CMA-2143/2017] Therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that while determining the compensation, the age of the deceased ought to have been considered as 50 years, not as 51 years.

10. If we examine the facts of the case in light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the impugned order needs to be modified to some extent.

11. Thus, while considering the age of the deceased to be 50 years and the income of the deceased at Rs.45,201/- per month at the time of accident and in light of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation amount claimed by the appellant is enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income Rs.45,201x12- 34,486/- (Income Tax) =Rs.5,07,926/- Future prospects (+) 15% Rs.76188.9/- Dependency (-) 1/4 Rs.1,46,028.725/- Multiplier (+) x13 (4,38,086x13) Rs.56,95,120.28/- Consortium (+) Rs.40,000/-x5 =Rs.2,00,000/- Funeral Expenses (+) Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Transportation of Dead Body (+) Rs.5,000/- Awarded under impugned order (-) Rs.43,35,390/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.15,94,730.21/-

12. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the learned MACT is modified by enhancing the amount [2025:RJ-JP:20822] (5 of 5) [CMA-2143/2017] of Rs.15,94,730.21/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.15,94,730.21/- before the learned concerned MACT within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.15,94,730.21/- at 6% per annum from the date of award, 19.12.2014.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced per the above terms.

14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. DEEPA RANI-51 (MANEESH SHARMA),J