***

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) –

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 01.03.2017 on account of death of Nishant Verma, a 13 years old child (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the accident in the present case took place on 15.03.2016 and the deceased at that point of time was 13 years of age. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would further contend that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of ‘14’ keeping in view the age of the parents of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. [2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276] to contend that in the said case the accident took place in the year 1992 and the notional income of a 10 years’ old child was assessed as Rs.30,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. [2017 (16) SCC 680] = 2018(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002; Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. [2013 (9) SCC 65]; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333] = 2019(1) L.A.R. 84 = (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14982.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Gopal (supra) had assessed the notional income of a 10 years’ old child, who died in a motor vehicle accident in 1992, as Rs.30,000/- per annum and in the present case the accident took place in the year 2016 and in view thereof this Court deems it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per annum and apply a multiplier of 15. However, no addition towards loss of future prospects is to be made in the present case as per the judgment in the case of Krishan Gopal (supra). Further, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase) each towards loss of consortium.

7. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

9. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Appeal allowed.

********