The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering the deceased's income, future prospects, and other conventional heads for compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimants") have assailed the judgment and award dtd. 03/03/2007 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 458/1993 under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,88,660.00 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till final realization.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this Appeal are as under:-

The Claimant No. 1 is the widow and Claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased Arunkumar Pandya who expired in a road accident on 26/03/1993. It is the case of the Claimants that on 26/03/1993, while the deceased Arunkumar Pandya was proceeding to Ramtek by his vehicle bearing No. MUK-6996, a jeep bearing No. MTE-2004 dashed against his vehicle, resulting in his instant death. It was alleged that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. MTE-2004. The Claimants further claimed that the deceased was 52 years of age and was employed as a Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College at Balaghat on monthly salary of Rs.7000.00. The Claimants therefore claimed total compensation of Rs.12,93,790.00.

3. The offending vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company"). The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the compensation claimed by the Claimants was exorbitant. The plea of contributory negligence has also been raised.

4. The learned Judge, upon considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. MTE-2004. The learned Judge further held that the deceased was 52 years of age. He was an employee of Government Polytechnic College, Balaghat. The learned Judge held that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.6971.00 whereas his net salary was Rs.4745.00. The learned Judge computed the compensation on the basis of the net salary of Rs.4745.00 and on adding Rs.700.00 per month towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11, the learned Judge assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,79,160.00. The learned Judge also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000.00 towards loss of consortium, Rs.2500.00 towards loss of Estate and Rs.2000.00 towards funeral expenses and thus granted total compensation of Rs.4,88,660.00. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award, the Claimants have filed this Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Act of 1988.

5. Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in computing the compensation on the basis of net income of the deceased. He further submits that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads viz. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. - (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be construed as just and reasonable compensation.

6. Per contra, Shri M.B. Joshi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation has been rightly computed on the basis of net salary. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Tukaram Jadhav and others - 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 840, he submits that, while considering the monthly income of the deceased, 30% of the amount has to be deducted on account of the income tax payable by the deceased.

7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is no