A compromise with one joint tortfeasor does not release others from liability, and the assessment of income for compensation must consider the circumstances surrounding the deceased's financial situation.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Correctness of the impugned award dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) has been challenged in the instant appeal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.32,68,427/- to the original petitioners towards loss of dependency on account of death of Prashant Babarao Bhongale, who died on 12.01.2019 in a vehicular accident that occurred on 20.02.2015.

3. Bare facts, which give rise to the present appeal, can be summarized as under :

On 20.02.2015, deceased Prashant Bhongale was proceeding towards Chandrapur on his motorcycle Honda Activa bearing No.MH-34-AR-5544. However, when he reached near Bapat Nagar Square, Chandrapur, a motorcycle Hero Passion Pro bearing No.MH-34-AG-0708 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.2 came at a high speed and gave a dash from the rear end to Prashant’s motorcycle wherein he fell down, sustained severe head injury and became unconscious on the spot itself. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Chandrapur and later shifted to Neuron Hospital at Nagpur. For better treatment, he was then hospitalized at Christ Hospital in Chandrapur and subsequently transferred back to Neuron Hospital at Nagpur but unfortunately, he remained unconscious and did not regain consciousness. Initially, appellant No.1, the wife of deceased Prashant, filed an injury claim petition as a next friend of the deceased. Pending the petition, deceased Prashant died on 12.01.2019 and the present appellants were substituted as legal representatives of Prashant. The appellants converted the injury claim petition into death claim for a compensation of Rs.94,10,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. At the time of the accident, respondent No.2 was driving the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the motorcycle Honda Activa and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the said motorcycle. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statements and resisted the claim. The Tribunal opined that Prashant died on 12.01.2019 due to a head injury sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 22.02.2015. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.32,68,427/- jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5. Before I proceed to deal with the grounds raised in the appeal by the appellants for enhancement of compensation, it will be appropriate to deal with the objection raised by respondent No.1 - the registered owner of the offending vehicle regarding maintainability of the appeal. It is appropriate to mention here that, after passing of the impugned award by the Tribunal, the appellants filed proceedings before the Tribunal for execution of the impugned award claiming an amount of Rs.50,74,821/- including the interest and cost of the claim petition. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where the appellants and respondent No.2 - the driver of the offending vehicle settled the dispute for Rs.40,00,000/- (forty lacs only). In the compromise, it was agreed that the appellants will not be entitled to recover the remaining amount or enhanced amount of award, if any, by the High Court in this appeal from respondent No.2. The said responsibility i.e. payment of remaining amount or enhanced amount of the award, if any, shall be of respondent No.1 and it was specifically mentioned that the compromise will not affect the right of the appellants to recover the remaining amount of impugned award from respondent No.1. Needless to mention that, respondent No.2 paid the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the appellants. Consequently, the liability of respondent No.2 was extinguished and therefore, the appellants did not press the appeal against res