The judgment established the principles for proving negligence, determining future income, applying the multiplier, assessing dependency, and setting the interest rate in motor accident claims.

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of the parties forthwith and is taken up for final hearing.

2. The Appellant – Insurance Company has taken exception to the Judgment and Award dated 21st July, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge – 5 and Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane at Thane, by which the Respondent – Claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.61,55,000/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

3. The impugned award has been challenged by the Appellant – Company on several counts, viz., (i) that the issue of negligence has not been proved ; (ii) that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to the established legal principles. It is contended that though the last salary certificate of the deceased reflected his salary as Rs.2,800/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in concluding the income of the deceased to be Rs.40,000/- per month ; (iii) that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding 50% towards future prospects, though the deceased was working as an Assistant Teacher on temporary contract basis with an unaided school ; (iv) that the Tribunal has erred in choosing the multiplier of 17' on the basis of the age of the deceased by ignoring the age of the respondent – claimants i.e. parents as has come on record ; and (v) that the dependency formula of 1/3rd was wrongly applied, considering the fact that the first respondent – claimant i.e. the father was not dependent on the deceased ; and lastly (vi) that the rate of interest awarded @9% per annum on the additional income of future prospects from the date of the application till realization is unjustified.

4. The respondent – claimants supported the award and contended that no interference was warranted in the same.

5. Before we deal with the rival submissions, it would be necessary to set out the factual matrix of the case and the evidence adduced by the respondent – claimants in support of their claim petition. On 19th February, 2006, Deepak was travelling as a passenger in a luxury bus on the Mumbai – Agra Road. He was occupying a seat on the driver's side of the bus. When the bus was near Maharana Hotel, Village Atgaon, District Nashik, a truck bearing No.RJ-01-G-6386 is stated to have come from the opposite direction and dashed into the luxury bus on the driver’s side, resulting in the passengers including Deepak suffering grievous injuries. Deepak was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nashik, however, he succumbed to the fatal injuries. The driver of the trailer truck is alleged to have driven the vehicle in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the collision. FIR came to be registered against the driver of the offending truck. At the relevant time, the deceased – Deepak was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Dadasaheb Dandekar Vidyalaya, a school run by Shishu Vihar Education Society. The first and the second respondent – claimants, i.e. the father and mother of the deceased – Deepak respectively, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in 2008 as against the owner of the offending truck and the appellant – company and sought compensation of Rs.66,70,000/-. The third respondent failed to contest the petition and hence the appellant – company sought leave to defend and contested the claim petition, by filing their written statement. The appellant - Company denied that the driver of the offending truck was negligent and that Deepak suffered injuries in the accident and died as a result of the same. They also questioned the claim petition with regard to the age, income and nature of employment of the deceased, the age of the respondent – claimants and contended that the claim petition was exorbitant.

6. The respondent – claimants in support of their claim petition examined the first respondent – claimant ; PW.2 – Deepali Ab