IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must reflect actual earnings and future prospects based on employment contracts, rather than solely on income tax returns, and claims for domestic services are valid regardless of the deceased's employment status.

JUDGMENT

Jitendra Jain, J. - This First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('M.V. Act') by the legal heirs of the deceased challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune ('Tribunal') dated 5th September 2019, in MACP No.500 of 2011 since the Tribunal granted claim of Rs. 1,31,37,171/- against claim of Rs.3,69,20,000/-.

2. Brief facts are as under:-

(i) On 3rd January 2011, Appellant Nos.1, 2 and the deceased, Ms. Madhuri S. Patil, were travelling from Sangli towards Pune in Maruti Swift Dzire. While they reached village Vele on Pune Bangalore National Highway, one Innova car collided with the car in which the Appellants and the deceased were travelling. Ms. Madhuri S. Patil died while being taken to the hospital and the Appellants sustained injuries.

(ii) On 3rd May 2011, the Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act with the Tribunal which was numbered as MACP No.500 of 2011 claiming interalia compensation of Rs.3,69,20,000/- along with other claims and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation of the entire amount. The claim was made against the owners of Innova and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

(iii) The parties led their respective evidence in support of their pleas and filed various documents which were exhibited by the Tribunal. On 5th September 2019, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim as under:

Nature of Claim

Rupees

Towards dependency

Rs.1,30,67,171/-

Loss of estate

Rs.15,000/-

Loss of consortium

Rs.40,000/-

Funeral expenses

Rs.15,000/-

Interest

6% per annum

Total

Rs.1,31,37,171/-

(iv) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Appellants have challenged the order by filing an appeal to this Court under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. The Insurance Company, Respondent No.3, has not challenged the order of the Tribunal.

(v) The Appellants have now claimed before us Rs.2,40,45,753/- as under:

Nature of Claim

Rupees

Towards dependency

Rs.2,17,35,753/-

Loss of estate

Rs.1,00,000/-

Loss of consortium

Rs.1,60,000/-

Funeral expenses

Rs.50,000/-

Loss of domestic services

Rs.18,00,000/-

Loss of love and affection

Rs.2,00,000/-

Interest

10% per annum

Total

Rs.2,40,45,753/- (excluding interest)

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent No.3-Insurance Company and with their assistance have perused the paper book containing exhibited documents filed before the Tribunal. We have also perused the Written Submissions filed by both the parties and the case laws relied upon by them. The following points arise for determination:-

Points for determination

Decision

(a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying only upon income tax return and not giving any reason for rejection of salary certificate for the purpose of determining annual income to arrive at just compensation?

(a) No. The Tribunal ought to have given reasons and ought to have considered the salary certificate with respect to items which did not appeared in the income tax return.

(b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking 30% towards future prospects without considering the evidence on record and giving reasons for rejection of the claim made by the Appellant of 50%.

(b) Partly allowed. The Tribunal ought to have considered 40% towards future prospects.

(c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the Appellant's claim on account of domestic services without giving any reason.

(c) No. The Tribunal ought to have given its reasons for not considering the same in arriving at compensation. Rs.9 lakh is awarded towards the same.

(d) Whether the amount awarded on account of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court.

(d) Yes.

(e) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not granting Rs.2 lakh towards loss of love and affection.

(e) No. However, same is considered while awarding compensation for domestic services.

(f) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting int