The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles from relevant case law to determine the quantum of compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J. - Both these appeals along with cross objections involve claims for compensation arising out of the same accident, as such they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. On 3/12/2006, Vithobha Adel and his wife Vaishali alias Surekha Adel, along with their family members were returning by a Bolero Jeep no.Ga-01- R-5673 from Dharmashthal- Mangalore to Goa. The jeep was driven by one Sameer alias Sanjay Naik. When the jeep reached at Belase- Ankola it dashed the border stones of the road and then rammed into a tree causing severe injuries to Vithoba as well as his wife Vaishali. While Vithoba succumbed to the injuries on 16/2/2007 while undergoing treatment, Vaishali died on 5/12/2006.

3. The original claimants being three sons, a daughter-in-law as well as a daughter and a son in-law of the deceased filed two separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao. Claim petition no.12/2009 was filed seeking a compensation of Rs. 4,65,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) in respect of the death of Vaishali, while Claim petition no.10/2009 was filed seeking a compensation of Rs. 9,65,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) in respect of the death of Vithoba. It appears that the offending jeep was previously owned by Vishnu Prasad the respondent no.3 before the Tribunal and it was purchased by Mr. Chandrakant U. Naik (since deceased), who was the respondent no.2 before the Tribunal. The respondent no.4, insurance company had issued a insurance policy covering the risk arising out of the use of the said jeep, which was effective from 10/2/2006 to 9/2/2007. Indisputably, the policy was endorsed in the name of Chandrakant Naik by way of a transfer w.e.f 11/12/2006 to 9/2/2007. There is no dispute on these aspects.

4. Both the petitions were contested by the respondents no.2, 3 and 4. The parties led oral and documentary evidence. The learned tribunal by an award dated 20/10/2014 granted a compensation of Rs. 4,07,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization in respect of the death of Vaishali. By a separate judgment of the even date the tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 7,02,200/- in respect of the death of Vithobha along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.

5. First Appeal no.65/2016 is filed by the Insurer challenging the award in Claims Petition no.12/2009 in which there is a Cross objection no.6/2016 filed by the original claimants for enhancement. Similarly First Appeal No.66/2006 is filed by the Insurer challenging the award in Claims Petition No.10/2009 in which the original claimants have sought enhancement by filing Cross Objection no.5/2016.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Cross Objectors. Perused record.

7. Shri Timble, the learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance company although has raised contentions challenging the finding as to negligence and breach of the policy condition, the principal ground of challenge is about the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant the tribunal is also in error in making addition towards the future prospects which are on a higher side.

Thus principally the challenge is on the point of quantum. It is submitted that the additions made in so far as the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium are not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) AIR SC 5157.

8. On the contrary it is submitted by Shri Kakodkar, the learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors that the Tribunal was not justified in making deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses on the ground that the claimants were not dependents on the deceased. It is submitted that the deduction towards personal and living expenses is not in acc