RAJINDER SINGH Vs. BALVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dtd. 29/7/2013 ("impugned award") passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (South-1), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

(2.) By way of impugned award dtd. 29/7/2013 the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.29,99,038.00(inclusive of interim award, if any) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount within a period of one month. Submission of the Appellant

(3.) Mr. Y. P. Laroya, learned counsel for the appellant while seeking enhancement of the compensation contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned award without appreciating the principles of law, documents and the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the monthly income of the deceased/victim as Rs.35,000.00 per month, however, taking into account the deposits made by the deceased/victim, the income of the deceased should be calculated a1 Rs.40,000.00 per month. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head 'Medical Expenses ' to the tune of Rs.45,874.00 as the medical bills which have been produced before the learned Claims Tribunal were for an amount of Rs.1,18,818.00. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors reported as (2017) 17 SCC 680, compensation under the head 'Future Prospects ' is to be paid by adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased/victim instead of 10%, as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended that multiplier should be adopted in terms of dicta laid down in case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs DTC and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 which is upheld in the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) whereby it was held that for the purposes of selection of multiplier, the age of the deceased has to be taken into account. He further contended that the deceased/victim was 26 years of age at the time of the incident and 27 years at the time of the death and the learned Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Income ' by taking the multiplier of 11 instead of 17. Learned counsel while placing reliance on Pranay Sethi (supra) contended that compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium ' 'Loss of Estate ' and 'Loss of Funeral Expenses ' needs to be modified/enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellant further sought compensation under the head ' Conveyance' as the deceased/victim has taken treatment in different hospitals and was shifted from one hospital to another. Learned counsel concluded his arguments seeking compensation under the head 'Pain and Mental Agony ' suffered by the family members of the deceased/victim. Submission of Respondent No. 3