The court ruled that accurate assessment of financial dependency and conventional compensation heads is essential, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in support of claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed by the original claim petitioners in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.874/2009. The appellant no.4 is a party to the present appeal although her name is not reflected as claim petitioner in the Motor Accident Claim Petition. This is so because she was appellant no.1 was carrying pregnancy at the time of filing of the claim petition and the appellant no.4 was born after filing of the claim petition. The respondent no.3 is mother of the deceased.

2. One Sandip s/o Jainarayan Pathak died in a motor accident on 31.08.2009 the respondent no.1 is owner of the offending vehicle with which the deceased met with an accident. The respondent no.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured with the relevant time.

3. As stated above Sandip met with road accident on 31.08.2009. He expired on the same day. His widow, daughter and father filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of his death. His mother was arrayed as respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioners in claim petition that deceased Sandip was working with a company, named Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd. and was getting salary of Rs.1,58,000/- per annum, in addition he was earning around Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from his business of Modular Kitchen and was also earning Rs.2,00,000/- approximately per annum from the agricultural lands of the family which were being cultivated by him. The appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.55,66,000/-. The respondent no.1 owner though served did not appear in the matter. The respondent no.2 Insurance Company filed written statement opposing the claim.

4. Based on rival submission issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. The appellant no.1 was examined as sole witness by the claim petitioner. The respondent no.1 did not enter the witness box. During the course of her evidence the witness of the appellant proved police papers, income certificate issued by Talathi, 7/12 extract of agricultural land, appointment letter and salary certificate issued by Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd. Having examined the appellant no.1 as a witness, the appellants closed their side of evidence. The learned Tribunal proceeded to hear arguments on the matter and was pleased to award compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in addition Rs.8,80,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Mr. K. P. Mirache, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the appointment letter and salary certificate which were duly proved during the course of evidence on the appellant no.1 and were marked as Exhibits 49 and 50 respectively. He contends that the income from salary of the deceased ought to have been taken into account in view of the said evidence. He contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the said evidence. He further contends that the statement of the witness who is wife of the deceased that he was engaged in business of Modular Kitchen and was earning income to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum also should have been accepted. He further contends that the deceased was looking after agricultural land of the family. He points out from the 7/12 extract that the agricultural lands owned by the family are extending to 27/28 acres approximately and therefore, the learned Tribunal should have taken into account income from agricultural land as certified by the Talathi in the income certificate at Exhibit 40. Mr. Mirache also points out that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding proper compensation under the head of loss of consortium as also loss of estate and funeral expenses.

6. Per contra Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Insurance Company contends that the author of the alleged appointment letter and salary certificate is not examined.