1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.75/2006 (Jugal Kishore & Anr. vs. Yunus Khan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 02.02.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF Mr.Prem Krishna Sharma, for appellants. None present, for respondents. *** This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimants appellants is directed against the judgment/award dated 19.10.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota. The facts in brief are that the deceased Narendra Mangal was going from Lucknow to Sanai Singerjot by maruti van UP 32 Z-3141 in the morning on 2.10.2002. When the maruti van reached Bhamua forest barrier at about 8.45 a.m. it collided head on with the bus UP 42A 0464 belonging to the respondent no.2 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in consequence of which the deceased Narendra Mangal and the driver of the maruti van died on the spot and one Parasmal Jain suffered serious injuries. The claimants appellants are the parents of the deceased Narendra Mangal. After hearing the parties learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of the claimants appellants. Aggrieved, the claimants appellants have filed this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the claimants appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. Mr.Prem Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants appellants, contended that learned Tribunal committed an error by not considering the future prospects of the deceased while determining his income. He further contended that learned Tribunal deducted 2/3 of the 2 income for personal expenses of the deceased whereas only 1/3 could have been deducted for this purpose. He also contended that learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants were around 50 years old at the time of the accident and thereafter adopted a multiplier of 10 whereas in such a situation multiplier of 13 was applicable. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. As regards the future prospects it has been held in 2007 ACJ 392 that if the multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is employed then the income of the deceased at the time of his death only is to be taken into account and no increase can be made on the basis of future prospects. In the facts and circumstances of this case the assessment of compensation is not required to be interfered with on ground of future prospects. As regard the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased I feel it will be appropriate in this case to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to 1/3 of the income. As regards the multiplier learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellants were around 50 years old at the time of the accident and in view of this conclusion I am of the opinion that the appropriate multiplier will be 11. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Narendra Mangal as Rs.1 lakh per year. If we deduct around 1/3 of it as expenditure incurred by the deceased on himself then the dependency comes to roughly Rs.66,000/- per year. If we adopt a multiplier of 11 then the amount on account of loss of income comes to Rs.7,26,000/-. If we add Rs.25,000/- for the loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for the expenses incurred on cremation as awarded by learned Tribunal then the 3 total amount comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. Thus the claimants appellants are entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs.7,56,000/-. The appeal of the claimants appellants is, therefore, allowed to the extent stated above and the amount of compensation is increased from Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.7,56,000/-. The claimants appellants will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award of learned Tribunal to the date of deposit / realization on the enhanced amount. Learned Tribunal will apportion the amount between the claimants appellants and will pass necessary orders regarding payment/fixed deposit thereof. No order as to costs. (G.S. Sarraf), J. Sanjay