[2025:RJ-JP:24754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1813/2008 1. Parsadi Lal S/o Harphool, Since Deceased, R/o Village Bilega, Police Station, Vazeerpur, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan 2. Smt. Kishan Bai W/o Late Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, Since Deceased through her Legal Heirs, B.O. Prithviraj Marg, Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer Insurance Company of Mini Bus No. Rrz 3491 ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Tejbahadur Gurun S/o Balbahadur Gurun Nepallyan Army Constable 5449555 Company 315, Gr Battalion Th, R/o Surgumdi, Police Dhabing, District Dhobing Nepal Presently 56 APO Driver Military Truck No. 191 D 87767 Driver 2. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Government of India, New Delhi 3. Commanding Officer Company, 315 GR Battalion Through 56 APO 4. R.B. Gurun Subedar JC No. 2270008, Head Quarter Company 315 GR Battalion through 56 APO ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Goyal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 04/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1988") for enhancement of compensation assailing the award dated 01.02.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast Track), Kota (hereinafter to be referred as "the learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No.379/2005 titled as "Sh. Parsadi Lal & Anr. Vs. Tejbahadur Gurun & Ors.), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellants was partly allowed and a [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (2 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased- Amar Singh met with an accident on 02.01.1999 caused by the driver of truck bearing registration No.1-91-D- 87767-A, who was driving in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the death of Amar Singh on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased-Amar Singh was a student of B.A. and his age was 20 years. 3. The respondents No.1 to 4 filed their joint reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made by the claimants/appellants. They submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 4. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim pe- tition, the claimant/appellant examined mother of deceased as AW-1 Smt. Kishan Bai. 5. In rebuttal, the non-claimants/respondents examined Subedar Shivraj Singh as NAW-1. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed four issues and after hearing arguments from both the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition vide order dated 01.02.2008 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants/appellants. 7. Being aggrieved of which, the claimants/appellants preferred this present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (3 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] 8. The learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding an inadequate amount and submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 11, by considering the age of the mother of the deceased whereas, while applying multiplier, the age of the deceased should be taken note. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal further erred in not considering the future prospects of the deceased. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondents has supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law, therefore, he submitted that no interference is required by this Court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From a perusal of record, it is established that the age of the deceased was 20 years and he lost his life in a road accident caused by the truck owned by non-claimant/respondent No.2 and driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1- Tejbahadur Gurun. It is also revealed that the learned Tribunal has calculated the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, while applying the multiplier of 11, the learned Tribunal incorrectly considered the age of the claimants/appellants (parents of the deceased) instead of the age of the deceased which is contrary to the well-settled position of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that while [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (4 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] determining the multiplier to be applied, the Court shall consider the age of the deceased and not that of the parents. 11. A reading of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sube Singh vs. Shyam Singh reported in 2018 INSC 126 shows that a Three Judge Bench has categorically taken the view that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied. This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the ratio of Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma reported in 2015 INSC 420, the relevant paragraph of Munna Lal (Supra) has been extracted below:- "12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (5 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.” 13. In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph-19, a two- Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote: “19. xxxxxx xxx Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.” 12. The same principle has reached finality in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud reported in 2019 (5) SCC 554, whereby a Three Judge Bench unequivocally held as under:- "10......The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and given its imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It is the third aspect which is of significance and Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf. 11. Not only this, the subsequent judgment of the Constitution bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also been referred to in Sube Singh for the purpose of calculation of the multiplier. 12. We are convinced that there is no need to once again take up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (6 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents." 13. In light of the above the impugned award dated 01.02.2008 is quashed and modified in accordance with the detailed calculation below in paragraph 15. 14. Considering the facts and the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, and also the fact that the relevant factor for applying the multiplier is the age of the deceased, and not that of the parents, the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3 regarding the age for calculation of compensation is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the claim for enhancement deserves to be accepted and modified. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the claimant/appellants are entitled to future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 15. That if we examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order requires enhancement in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income(+) Rs.15,000/- Multiplier (18) Rs.2,70,000/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.3,78,000/- Deduction 1/2 (Dependents-2) 50%(-) Rs.1,89,000/- Love and Affection (Rs.40,000/-)(+) Rs.40,000/- Funeral Expenses & Loss of Rs.15,000/-+Rs.15,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:24754] (7 of 7) [CMA-1813/2008] Estate(+) =Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.2,59,000/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.1,80,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.79,000/- 16. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified by enhancing compensation amount to Rs. 2,59,000/- from the original amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.79,000/- before the learned concerned Tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.79,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the said amount. 17. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI-43