The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation in a motor accident claim, considering factors such as income assessment, deductions, and entitlement to specific types of compensation.

1. Heard. Admit. With consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Bhapkar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Since the arguments are advanced only on the point of quantum, brief reference to the fact will suffice.

3. On 14.08.1995, son of the claimants aged 22 years was proceeding in a Jeep from Pune to Jejuri. That time, truck coming from the opposite side was driven rashly and negligently and on account of rashness of drivers of both the vehicles, the accident took place and the deceased died. The crime was registered against the truck driver. The opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the trial court are driver, owner and insurer of truck. Opponent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the trial court are driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep. During the pendency of the claim, the opponent Nos. 1 to 4 were deleted and the claim proceeded only against the owner and insurer of the Jeep. The deceased was travelling in the Jeep and there was comprehensive policy with additional premium for the passengers with limited liability to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4. The claim was initially filed by mother aged 45 years. Later on her husband also joined her. It was claimed that the deceased was doing hotel business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned trial Judge for want of documents held that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Though the deceased was bachelor, the trial court deducted 1/3 expenses towards personal expenses. The learned trial Judge adopted multiplier 13 as per the age of the mother, Calculated loss of income Rs. 3,12,000/- and awarded additional Rs. 20,000/- for loss of estate, funeral and expenses of transportation.

5. Shri. Bhapkar, learned advocate for the appellant argued that as the deceased was aged 22 years as per the settled law, the multiplier 18 should have been adopted. There was evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. There should have been future prospects, and there should have been reasonable compensation including consortium under conventional heads. The rate of interest also should have been higher.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Shri. Kulkarni argued that deceased was a bachelor, and therefore, deduction should have been 50 %. There was no documentary evidence about the income and the learned Judge has rightly assumed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. He argued that there cannot be future prospects as deceased was not self-employed or on fixed salary. The deceased is not entitled for consortium as he has not left behind his wife.

7. The points for my consideration with my findings are as follows :-

Nos.	Points	Findings
1	Whether the learned trial Judge has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimant ?	In the negative.
2	What order ?	Appeal is partly allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,62,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

REASONS

8. The factum of the accident and rashness and negligence on the part of both the vehicles is not in dispute though the charge sheet was filed only against the truck driver. As per the case KHENYEI Vs. New India Insurance, 2016 (2) MhLJ 514, when two vehicles are involved, it is a choice of the claimants to sue either one them or both of them. It is a case of composite negligence and both the vehicle owners and insurer are jointly and severally liable. Therefore, deletion of driver, owner, insurer of the truck will not affect the rights of the claimant.

9. Though, there is evidence of CW2 that he had given his hotel business to the deceased for running hotel, there is no documentary evidence to show higher income of Rs.6,000/- as claimed. Nobody starts his own business without any agreement. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge