Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39344 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 283 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Maya Rani And Ors. Respondent :- Firoz Khan And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashank Singh,Jaipriya Swapnil Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Prakash Dubey,B.P. Dubey,Divya Gupta,Seema Nehru Dubey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Ms. Nandini Rani, Advocate appearing under the authority of Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kartikey Dubey, Advocate appearing under the authority of Sri B.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. The claimants-appellants have approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Sections 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the award dated 02.08.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")/ Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.193 of 2005, wherein, in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2, 90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with the effect from 16.12.2008 (even though the claim petition was filed on 06.10.2005). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the award only on the ground of enhancement, has stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner for the family who died on 04.08.2005. He was working as a labourer and was able to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. It was also urged that he was 24 years of age and his income should have been taken to be Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.2,500/-. It is further urged that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased, whereas the law prescribes that the multiplier is to be adopted as per the age of the deceased. 4. It is further submitted that future prospects have not been taken note of, nor has the amount to be granted for conventional heads been appropriately awarded. It is also urged that the deceased was survived by his mother, two minor brothers and sister. In such circumstances, filial consortium for the mother should have been calculated considering the law as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC Online 1546. 5. It has further been urged that the Tribunal erred in granting interest not from the date of the claim petition but from 16.12.2008, i.e., the date when the Insurance Company put in appearance before the Tribunal. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is urged that the award made by the Tribunal dated 02.08.2010 deserves to be modified and the compensation be enhanced. 6. The aforesaid submissions have been refuted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company; however, he could not dispute the fact that the law is now well settled by the Apex Court, not only in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC Page 680 but also as subsequently followed in the Case of Sunita Tokas vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1045 that the multiplier is to be adopted on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimant, hence, in this view of the matter, the multiplier is to be taken on the age of the deceased and it would lead to an enhanced multiplier to be adopted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also could not dispute the fact that there was no justification for the Tribunal to have awarded interest on the amount granted as compensation w.e.f. 16.12.2008 (when the Insurance Company put in appearance), whereas the claim petition was filed on 06.10.2005. 8. From the record, it appears that the claimants, who were the mother, minor brothers and sister of the deceased, were dependents since their father had pre-deceased him and the deceased was the sole breadwinner. In such circumstances, the deduction of 1/3rd, which has been made, does not appear to be incorrect. Though this fact is refuted by the counsel for the Insurance Company, who contends that since the deceased was a bachelor, a 50% deduction should have been made, this Court does not find favor with the aforesaid submission. The reason being that it was not disputed that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and, in such circumstances, his mother and three minor siblings were his dependents. This fact has been taken note of by the Tribunal while making the deduction of 1/3rd, which does not suffer from any palpable error that would persuade this Court to hold otherwise. 9. In light of the aforesaid facts, including the fact that no future prospects have been granted by the Tribunal and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 as well as the Constitution Bench decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the award needs to be recalculated on the admitted facts and the awarded sum is being recalculated by the Court as under :- Income = Rs.2500/- per month Add:- 40% towards future prospects:- = Rs.1000/- Total Income = Rs.3500/- per month Less:- (1/3rd ) = Rs.1100/- (deduction for 4 number of dependents on personal expenses) Thus total income (Rs.2400 per month x 12) = Rs.28,800/- p.a. Age = 24 years Multiplier = 18 Thus compensation payable (Rs.28,800 x 18)= Rs.5,18,400/- Consortium (for three minor siblings) = Rs.1,00,000/- Filial consortium for mother = Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- ------------------------------------------------------ Thus, total compensation Rs.6,88,400/- payment shall be 10. The claimants will be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,88,400/- as calculated above. Any amount already paid to the claimants shall be adjusted towards the aforesaid sum and the total amount of Rs.6,88,400/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 06.10.2005, i.e., the date of institution of the claim petition. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to the claimants and the award shall be serviced by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from today. 11. This Court further finds that insofar as the findings regarding negligence and the the liability of the Insurance Company to service the award are concerned, the same are not under challenge as no cross-objections or cross appeal has been filed by the respondents; hence, all those findings are affirmed. 12. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award dated 02.08.2010 passed in Claim Petition No.193 of 2005 shall be modified only for the quantum as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The record of the Tribunal shall be sent forthwith to the Tribunal. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2025/Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench