Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellants, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded vide impugned award dated 05.11.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was 31 years of age, therefore, the multiplier of 14 has been wrongly applied. It is further argued that nothing has been awarded for future prospects. The amount granted under the other heads is also on the lower side.
(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) IN the instant case, the deceased was admittedly 31 years of age. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma v. DTC, : 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 : 2009 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : 2009 (6) SCC 121, the multiplier of 14 is enhanced to 16. Furthermore, keeping in view the laid laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, : 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 : 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 659 : (2013) 9 SCC 54, an increase of 50% is ordered towards future prospects of the deceased. In this way, the amount of compensation towards the head 'loss of dependency' would come to Rs. 5,100/ - + 50% X 12 X 2/3 X 16 = Rs. 9,79,200/ -, as against the amount of Rs. 5,71,200/ -, awarded by the learned Tribunal.;