ANNAPPA Vs. GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellants who were claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.1806/2014, seeking enhancement.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation in motor vehicle accident in which Umesh, one of the sons of appellant Nos.1 and 2 suffered grievous injuries and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the parents while determining the multiplier. It is submitted that the question as to whether the age of the deceased has to be taken or the age of the parents has to be taken while deciding the multiplier has been settled in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has also not considered award under the head Loss of Future Prospects. The learned counsel submits that the constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 has laid down the law that in case where the deceased is self-employed or has a fixed salary, depending on the age of the deceased certain percentage has to be added to the income to arrive at a loss of future prospects. The learned counsel further submits that as per the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, the award under the head parental consortium was required to be granted in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company seeks to justify the decision of the Tribunal.