IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that compensation in motor accident cases must reflect the deceased's potential earnings and the emotional loss suffered by the family, guided by the principles of fairness and reasonableness.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 30/4/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur ("Tribunal", for short) in Claim Petition No.1081 of 1999, by which awarded the compensation of Rs.7, 72, 500.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The claimant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as under : Deceased Rishiraj Pratapkumar Mane on 8/12/1998 alongwith other four was proceeding in his Maruti Car MH-31- Z-2291 from Khapari to Mahal Nagpur. At the relevant time, one Prashant Dhote was driving the Maruti Car. As per the contention of the claimant, the Maruti Car driver was driving the said car by left side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations. At about 3:45 a.m., said Maruti Car reached at Chinchbhawan locality at Wardha Road. At the relevant time, one Matador bearing No.MWY-5886 driven by its driver came from opposite direction in excessive speed and dashed against the Maruti Car. Due to the severe dash, said Rishiraj died in an accident at the spot itself. Regarding the said accident, crime No.206 of 1998 was registered against the Matador driver at Sonegaon Police Station. The Matador was driven by respondent No.2 owned by respondent No.1 and validly insured with respondent No.3 - National Insurance Company. The Maruti Car was insured with respondent No.4 - United India Insurance Company Limited.

4. The appellant is the mother of deceased Rishiraj. Deceased Rishiraj was 25 years of age and was unmarried. He was healthy and had completed his B.E. in Industrial and Production Engineering from Banglore University in 1997. He had worked as a Marketing Engineer at about one year at Banglore. Thereafter, he was at Melborn in Australia for further studies. He came to Nagpur for attending the marriage of deceased Mahendrasingh and died in an accident. The applicant No.1 is mother, who depend upon him, he was the only earning member in the family in future. Deceased was having bright future and would have earned handsome amount. But, due to the death of the deceased, the claimant have lost her support, love and affection, and therefore, she is entitled for the compensation.

5. In response to the notice of the petition, though respondent nos.1 and 2 appeared, failed to file written statement. As per the defence of the respondent No.3 National Insurance Company, on the day of accident, offending vehicle Matador bearing No.MWY-5886 was not insured with it, therefore, respondent No.3 denied the liability. Respondent No.4 - United India Insurance Company admitted that Maruti Car bearing No.MH-31-Z-2291 was insured with it, but contended that as the Matador driver was negligent and no negligence was claimed, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay compensation.

6. To substantiate the contention, applicant No.1 Pratibharaje adduced her evidence and reiterated about the occurrence of the accident. The certified copies of the police papers are filed in claim petition. Petitioners relied upon FIR Exh-71, Spot Panchanama Exh-72, Post-Mortem Report Exh74, Accident Form Exh-75 etc. The Insurance Company respondent No.3 adduced evidence by examining their Assistant Manager Damodar Rajaramji Raut vide Exh-82 who testified that the offending vehicle bearing No.MWY-5886 was insured for the period of 4/7/1997 to 3/7/1998. The accident occurred on 8/12/1998. Thus, the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent No.3 on the date of accident.

7. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that vehicle was not validly insured with the respondent No.3 on the day of accident and exonerated the Insurance Company. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased as Rs.12, 000.00 per month and after deducting 1/3rd, awarded the compensati