IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – 'Future Prospects’ are integral component of just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The appellants-herein are the original claimants, who by filing the present appeal, have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in FAO No. 6692 of 2010 to the extent that the High Court, even while enhancing the compensation in respect of accidental death, disregarded the count of future prospects’ in computing the compensation payable to the appellants/ claimants/heirs.

3. While noticing the crux of the controversy as above, the basic facts may be stated. In an accident which took place on 31.08.2007 at about 3.00 a.m. in the area of Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal one Rajinder Singh Mihnas died, who happened to be the husband of claimant No. 1 and father of other claimants who are the daughter and son respectively. The deceased was travelling in a car bearing registration No. DL-3C-AP-5711 along with relatives named Devender Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur going to Hoshiarpur from Delhi. The car was driven by Devender Singh. The deceased was sitting in the front seat of the car. A Swaraj Mazda truck bearing registration No. HR-46-A-4816 which was stated to be driven rashly and negligently, struck with the car. The accident resulted into death of said Rajinder Singh Mihnas aged 31 years.

3.1 It was the case that the deceased had been working as a driver and running a Transport company in the name and style of West End Express Inc. in the United States of America (USA), claiming to be earning $ 9,600/- equivalent to Rs. 4,25,000/- per month in Indian rupee. The deceased was a U.S. national as was established from the evidence on record including copy of permanent resident card of USA (Exb. P-2), copy of passport of the daughter and letter (Exb. P-8) from the Company that he was employed as owner/operator/driver for the said West and Express Company earning in dollars. The claimants- heirs filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

3.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) applied multiplier of 16 having regard to the age of the deceased to be 31 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal, however, on the score of income, took the view that the evidence produced by the claimants would suggest that the income of the deceased could not be assessed beyond Rs. 5000/- per month. The deceased was self-employed and it was reasoned by the Tribunal that there was no material on record to prove as to what was the daily wages paid in the USA. The Tribunal accordingly taking the income at Rs. 5000/- per month, deducting the personal expenses and applying the multiplier as above determined the compensation.

3.3. In the final analysis, the Tribunal held that the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,80,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition till final realization, failing which the further interest @ 5% was provided to be payable. The compensation was calculated on the basis of Rs. 60,000/- being the yearly income minus 1/3rd personal expenses multiplied by a multiplier, further adding the amounts of Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expense, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection as well as for transportation of dead body and miscellaneous charges, including Rs. 1,00,000/- for travelling expenses from U.S. to India.

3.4. The High Court, in the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants, was of the view that in calculating the amount of compensation, the Tribunal overlooked the documents such as the income tax record bearing social security number of the deceased as also the salary certificate exhibit P-8 which indicated the income to be $2150 per week which was rejecte