The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation for claimants in a motor accident case, considering various factors such as income, future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Suraj Naik, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 16.04.2014 to the extent the Tribunal has not awarded the claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- but awarded compensation of only Rs. 4,34,000/-.

3. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that, in this case, the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased Sanju at Rs. 4,500/- when, in fact, his employer (AW-3) had deposed that the deceased was a truck driver employed by him and was paid a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month.

4. Mr. Mulgaonkar, without prejudice, submitted that the Tribunal erred in not making any addition for future prospects and consortium. He submitted that even the amount awarded towards the loss of estate should have been Rs. 15,000/- and not merely Rs. 5,000/-.

5. Mr. Suraj Naik, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, defended the impugned award based on the reasonings reflected therein. In particular, he pointed out that A3, who claims to be an employer of the deceased, had neither produced any employment letter nor salary certificate in support of his bare statement that the deceased was employed by him. Mr. Suraj Naik pointed out that A3 had not even bothered to produce any evidence to show that he indeed had some truck and was engaged in the business of transporting ore. Mr. Suraj Naik submitted that in the absence of any evidence about salary/income, the Tribunal was justified in resorting to the notification on a minimum basis. Mr. Suraj Naik submitted that this appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

6. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

7. At the outset, I agree with the submissions of Mr. Suraj Naik that, in this case, there is no legal evidence to sustain the claim that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The salary certificate or any other proof of payment was not forthcoming on the record. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was quite justified in taking the salary at Rs. 4,500/- per month or Rs. 54,000/- per year.

8. The Tribunal, however, erred in not taking into account the future prospects. In paragraph 59.4 of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the deceased was self-employed or had a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In this case, the deceased was 27 years old at the time of his unfortunate demise. Therefore, an addition of 40% was due on the established income of Rs. 54,000/- per year. There is no dispute about the multiplier which in this case would be 17. Thus, towards dependency, the compensation will have to be determined at Rs. 6,42,600/-.

9. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and not merely Rs. 5,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is also entitled to funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/- and not Rs. 20,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The aforesaid awards are consistent with the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). In this case, no award has been made towards the consortium. The claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- is due to each of the claimants towards the consortium. This is again consistent with the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and explained in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. In Magma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the word “consortium” would include not just spousal consortium but parental consortium and filial consortium. Accordingly, additional compensation of Rs. 80,000/- is due on this count as well.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, just compensation, in this case, will have to be determined at Rs. 7,52,