The main legal point established in the judgment is that in claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, and the court must consider various factors including the deceased's income and future prospects in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

By consent of the parties, delay is condoned. Appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 17.7.2015 in Claims Application No. 345 of 2008, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,88,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per anum from the date of application till final realization.

3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Brahmanand Padmakar Shukla, who had expired in a motor vehicular accident at Mahul Pada Road on 16/4/2006. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be hereinafter referred to as the claimants. It was the case of the complainant that on 16.4.2014, at about 2.45 p.m. while Brahmanand Shukla was proceeding towards Mahul Village, on his motor-cycle one BEST bus bearing number MH-01-H-8990 came at a high speed and dashed against his motorcycle. Said Brahmanand expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident.

4. The claimants stated that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BEST bus. The deceased was 21 years of age and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as insurance agent. The claimants therefore filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

5. The appellant insurance company denied that the bus No. MH01-H-8990 was involved in the accident. The respondent insurance company further claimed that the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant.

6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants as well as by the appellant insurance company, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the BEST bus no. MH-01-H-8990 owned by the appellant Corporation was involved in the accident. It is also held that the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said bus. The Tribunal observed that the deceased was working as an Insurance Agent and relying upon the bank statement, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% of the established income towards future prospects and further deduced 50% towards personal expenses, and applying multiplier of 18 computed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.10,53,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded 40% towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.11,08,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Mr.Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the first information report given on the same date did not mention the number of the vehicle, and in fact the crime was registered against an unknown person. He submits that the driver of the said bus was arrested only after a period of six months. He further submits that the driver has been acquitted by the criminal court on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the involvement of the said bus in the accident. He further submits that the evidence adduced before the Tribunal also does not prove the involvement of the said vehicle in the said accident.

8. On the question of quantum of compensation, he submits that the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He submits that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6500/- for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive.

9. Shri Mendon, the learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the issue of rashness and negligence is required to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. He submits that neither the Tribunal nor this Court is bound by the judgment of the Crimina