JUDGMENT : (1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1122/2018 (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 839/2018 (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 846/2018 (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 847/2018 (5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1111/2018 (6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1113/2018 (7) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1118/2018 (8) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1121/2018 (9) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1124/2018 1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.230/2014, 228/2014, 229/2014, 227/2014, 234/2014, 231/2014, 235/2014, 236/2014 & 232/2014 on behalf of the appellants/claimants who suffered various injuries on account of the accident occurred on 12/09/2013. 2. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants sustained simple injuries for which the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum as such the same is required to be enhanced by this Court. He submits that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellants, the expenses were incurred by the appellants for the treatment, they suffered pain and agony, and for some time, some of the appellants could not be able to perform their day to day functions. He, therefore, submits that a reasonable amount may be enhanced in their cases. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the arguments, have submitted that since the injuries suffered by the appellants are simple in nature, the Tribunal rightly awarded the amount of compensation in the present cases as the amount awarded by the Tribunal can very conveniently be treated as ‘just compensation’ in the present case. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the records of the case including the injury reports of the appellants. 7. The injury reports of the appellants show that all the appellants suffered simple injuries and as per the injury reports, it can be reasonably inferred that though after primary treatment the appellants were discharged, the fact of pain and suffering cannot be ruled out. 8. 7. The injury reports of the appellants show that all the appellants suffered simple injuries and as per the injury reports, it can be reasonably inferred that though after primary treatment the appellants were discharged, the fact of pain and suffering cannot be ruled out. 8. Without going into the merits of the cases on overall consideration of facts, this Court is of the view that if an amount of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees : Five Thousand Only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal is awarded to the appellants/claimants, the same will meet the ends of justice. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals preferred by the appellants are partly allowed. The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees : Five Thousand Only) to each of the appellants/claimants as full and final settlement towards the compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09/08/2017 within a period of six weeks from today. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the same will carry an interest @ 6% per annum till the same is paid. (10) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 836/2018 : 9. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the amount awarded in the present case is not liable to be enhanced in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 as the deceased was 70 years old and, therefore, no amount towards the loss of future prospects is liable to be awarded in this case. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. I am of the considered view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the present case is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court, more particularly, when the age of the deceased was 70 years old and, therefore, no amount towards the loss of future prospects can be awarded in conformity with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merit and the same is, hereby dismissed. (11) S.B. Civil Misc. Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merit and the same is, hereby dismissed. (11) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 834/2018 : (12) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 837/2018 : (13) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 838/2018 : (14) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 840/2018 : 11. Theses appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.16/2014, 13/2014, 393/2014 (wrongly mentioned as 393/2016) & 17/2014 whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 9,90,000/-, Rs.7,15,000/- Rs.6,65,088/- and Rs.5,25,000/-towards the death of deceased Mahendra Singh, Ganesh, Khana Mali and Foru Kumhar respectively were awarded to the claimants/appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly submits that age, income and number of the dependents of the deceased persons were correctly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of future prospects in their cases. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157 and submits that the amount towards loss of future prospects should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while computing the award in the present cases. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed an error while deducting 20% of the amount towards the contributory negligence. He submits that 20% amount deducted in the present cases will cause hardships to the appellants. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the evidence on record and after appreciation of the same, the compensation has been awarded. The same does not require any interference by this Court. However, learned counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel further submit that the deceased persons were travelling in a tractor trolley and the owner and driver of the tractor trolley as well as the Insurance Company with which the same was insured have not been arrayed as party respondents in the present case. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors, [Appeal (Civil) No. 2532 of 2007], decided on 15/05/2007. Thus, the respondent-Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the entire compensation. The deceased persons were travelling in a tractor trolley which is not passengers carrying vehicle and, therefore, learned Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation to the claimants. 12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 13. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the tractor trolley in which the deceased were travelling have not been arrayed as the respondents is of no consequence as the Tribunal has already reduced the compensation to the extent of 20% on account of the deceased persons travelling in a non-commercial vehicle. Further, it is noted that the findings of the Tribunal recorded vide its impugned judgment have not been assailed before this Court by the respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, this argument is not available to the respondent in this case. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to be interfered and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on this ground as the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents has no application in the facts of the present case. 14. It is also noted that the Tribunal has reduced the amount of compensation on the ground that the deceased persons were travelling in a trolley attached with the tractor which was basically not meant for transportation and thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal for deduction of 20% of the compensation amount is not interfered with and the same is upheld. The amount towards the loss of future prospects have not been awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The amount towards the loss of future prospects have not been awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, this Court feels that the appellants are entitled for the same and since the factors used by the Tribunal for computation of the income have not been challenged by the counsel for the appellants, the same factors are utilized for the purpose of calculation of the loss of future prospects. The total amount towards the loss of future prospects (after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence) is Rs.2,44,800/-, 1,72,800/-, 1,40,828/-1,44,000/- respectively. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the appeals preferred by the appellants are partly allowed. The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay amounts of Rs.2,44,800/-, 1,72,800/-, 1,40,828/-1,44,000/- respectively to the appellants/claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions before Tribunal till the same is paid. (15) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1112/2018 : (16) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2018 : (17) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2018 : (18) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1119/2018 : (19) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1120/2018 : (20) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1123/2018 : 16. Theses appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.322/2014, 233/2014, 321/2014, 318/2014, 320/2014 & 319/2014 whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 1,40,823/-, 2,04,312/-, 1,23,534/-, 1,60,745/-, 1,34,700/- and 1,65,550/- respectively have been awarded. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of future prospects on account of the permanent disability suffered by the appellants. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 . He also places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The national Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2014SC 736 & Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors, AIR 2020SC776. AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692 . He also places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The national Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2014SC 736 & Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors, AIR 2020SC776. Learned counsel fairly submits that the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal i.e. age, income and the percentage of disability suffered by the claimants shall be taken into consideration while calculating the amount towards the loss of future prospects and he does not dispute the same. The calculation towards the same is as under :- Sr. No. Name of Injured Age Income Permanent disability Number of Injury Tribunal awarded Less 20% Contributory Negligence Future Prospect Less 20% Contributory Negligence 1 Asha 15 15% 5 injuries (1 Grievous & 4 Simple) 1,40,823 1,12,659 63,685/- 50,948/- 2 Smt. Geeta 28 4914/ month 18% 2 injuries (1 Grievous & 1 Simple) 2,04,312 1,63,450 72,134 57,708/- 3 Smt. Sita 23 4914/ month 10% 3 injuries (1 Grievous & 2 Simple) 1,23,534 98,828 40,065 32,052/- 4 Monu 16 18% 5 injuries (2 Grievous & 3 Simple 1,60,745 1,28,596 68,571 54,857/- 5 Anil 15 10% 5 injuries (2 Grievous & 3 Simple) 1,34,700 1,07,760 42,456/- 54,857/- 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that after evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded a ‘just compensation’ in the present case, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has considered the evidence brought before it and has rightly awarded the compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellants. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation in view of the injuries suffered by the appellant. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 19. The fact that the injuries sustained by the injured claimants is because of the accident which occurred on 12/09/2013 and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in computing the compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants/appellants. 19. The fact that the injuries sustained by the injured claimants is because of the accident which occurred on 12/09/2013 and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in computing the compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants/appellants. However, the loss of future prospects has not been added while computing the award, therefore, the same is required to be taken into consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. and Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways (supra). 20. Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed and the respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay amounts of Rs.50,948/-, Rs.57,708/-, Rs.32,052/-, Rs.54,857 and Rs.33,965/- respectively to the appellants/claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions before Tribunal till the same is paid.