The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claim petitions based on the notional income of the deceased and the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Avachat, J. - Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment since the appeals are interconnected.

2. The challenge in both the appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 7/7/2010, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petitions (MACP) No. 189/2008 and 191/2008. The appellants herein were the claimants in the MACPs before the Tribunal.

FACTS:-

3. The jeep bearing registration No. MH-16/C-1944 met with the accident on 11/4/2008. Deceased Mohseen and deceased Mudassar along with others were traveling in the ill-fated jeep. As a result of the accident, both the deceased and others in the jeep suffered multiple injuries. Both the deceased and one more inmate in the jeep died as a result of the injuries suffered in the said accident. The legal representatives of all the three deceased, therefore, preferred three separate claim petitions for compensation. The MACT allowed those petitions. Two of the judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal in those three claim petitions are under challenge in these appeals.

4. Heard. Shri Dargad, learned counsel holding for Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, in case of First Appeal No. 1798/2010 deceased Mohseen was a professional driver. His driving licence in the 'transport' category was tendered in evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have considered his monthly income at Rs. 4500/-. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects. A multiplier has been applied on the age of the claimant.

5. In case of First Appeal No. 1799/2010, the learned counsel would submit that, the deceased was a businessman, earning Rs. 7000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, considered his notional income at Rs. 3000/-. Nothing has been awarded towards future prospects. Wrong multiplier has been applied. He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeals.

6. Shri Upadhye, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that, the accident took place on the bridge. It was head-on collision. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the relative of the deceased. 50% of the contributory negligence is attributable to the jeep driver. The learned counsel would submit that, for challenging the findings on the issues, the Insurance Company is not required to prefer any appeal or cross-objection. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Saurav Jain & anr. Vs. M/s. A.B.P. Design & anr. [2021 STPL 7106 SC]. The learned counsel, therefore, first urged for dismissal of the appeals and in the alternative, submitted that the deceased driver of the jeep be held equally responsible and accordingly liability may be apportioned.

7. Learned counsel would submit that, the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680 ] will have precedence over the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & ors., [(2018) 18 SCC 130].

8. Considered the rival submissions. Perused the impugned judgment and awards. Gone through the relevant evidence. True, the accident took place on the bridge. The Tribunal has, however, after having appreciated the scene of accident panchanama, held it to be a case of exclusive negligence on the part of the truck driver. On due investigation, the police has charged the truck driver for being responsible to the accident. Furthermore, in another claim petition arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal has given same finding, holding the truck driver to be exclusively negligent. The respondent Insurance Company has not challenged the said judgment and award. As such, the said judgment has attained finality inter-se the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of both the vehicles involved in the said accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, therefore, could not be heard in these appeals to say that the dri