The appellate court can enhance compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act even without a cross-appeal from claimants, ensuring just compensation based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

3. This appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, challenges judgment and award dated 28.11.2016 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in M.A.C.P. No. 543 of 2012.

4. Facts leading to this first appeal, in brief, can be stated thus:

On 08.05.2012 Prasraj alias Parshuram Patil was not keeping well, therefore, Haushilal Krushna Patil and Gorakh Khandu Gaikwad took him on motorcycle to the hospital for treatment. On Nagpur-Surat road, within the area of village Ner, near Dhandai petrol pump, truck bearing No. MH-18-AA-7699 gave dash to the motorcycle and due to the injuries received in the accident Gorakh Gaikwad died during medical treatment. The truck driver was prosecuted in C.R. No. 115/2012. Claimants, therefore, filed claim contending that deceased was doing labour work on the boring machine vehicle. He was 34 years old and was getting salary of Rs. 6,000 to 7,000 per month. They, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest.

5. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2/Driver and owner of offending vehicle did not appear in the Tribunal and claim proceeded ex-parte against them. Opponent No. 3/Insurance Company opposed the claim by filing written statement. It is claimed that offending truck was not involved in the accident. Accident is dated 08.05.2012 and report of the accident is given by rider i.e. Haushilal Deore against unknown vehicle. Therefore, offending truck cannot be said to be involved in the accident. It is further contended that driver of the offending truck was not holding valid and effective driving license and therefore there is breach of terms and conditions of policy. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. The Tribunal after recording evidence, allowed the claim and directed Opponent Nos. 2 and 3/owner and insurance company to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 9,54,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. Insurance Company is aggrieved by said judgment and award.

7. Heard learned advocate for appellant/Insurance Company and learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Claimants.

8. Learned advocate for appellant submits that offending truck was not at all involved in the accident and the FIR of the accident dated 08.05.2012 was lodged in 13.05.2012 by the investigating officer stating that unknown vehicle gave dash to the motorcycle. He therefore submits that burden of proving involvement of offending truck is not discharged by the claimants and merely because charge sheet is filed against driver of offending truck that by itself is not sufficient to hold that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. He submits that wife of deceased was of 32 years of age at the time of deposition, hence, deceased cannot be said to be of 24 years old, particularly, in view of the fact that claimant No. 1 and deceased were having three children aged, 11 years, 7 years and 4 years. He therefore submits that Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 18 and multiplier of 15 at the most can be said to be applicable in the facts of the present case as deceased would be in the age of group of 36-40 years. He submits that towards loss of love and affection and consortium amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- is awarded, which is excessive and contrary to decision in Pranay Sethi. He therefore, submits that first appeal may be allowed by quashing the impugned judgment and award.

9. Learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and award. He submits that Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased and failed to calculate compensation under the head ‘future prospects’. Circular issued by Central Government specifying monthly wages of unskilled workers at Rs. 8,000/- is not considered by the Tribunal. He submits that, therefore,