Compensation calculation in motor vehicle accident cases must reflect established income and future prospects as per judicial standards.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) is preferred by the Original Claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.290/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Claim Petition’), decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by Judgment and Award dated 12.10.2015, seeking further enhancement in the compensation.

2. The facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, are as under :

2.1. The Original Claimants filed the above referred Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal contending that Claimant No.1 was the Widow and the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 were the Children of Vinod Motilal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’). On 20.07.2011 when Deceased left his home on Bicycle to attend his duty at Rajasthan Sweet Mart and reached on Lakkadkot bridge on Jalna to Aurangabad Road at about 10:15 a.m., the State Transport Bus bearing No. MH-40/N-8291 which was coming from the back side, gave dash to the Bicycle of Deceased and the accident took place. Deceased suffered severe injuries, to which he succumbed during the treatment on 21.07.2011. Deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- (Rs. Nine Thousand) Per Month and, therefore, the Claimants claimed the compensation from the Respondents i.e. the State Transport Corporation, to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh) with interest at the rate of 12% Per Annum.

2.2. The Respondents contested the Claim Petition by filing Written-statement below Exh.13. They denied the case and contentions of the Claimants. The Bus Driver was not driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. The Deceased fell on the road as the Bicycle slipped and suffered injuries. False crime was registered against the Bus Driver. They contented that, the Claim Petition be dismissed.

2.3. The learned Tribunal framed the following Issues below Exh.14, which reads as under :

“1. Do the petitioners prove that deceased Vinod s/o. Motilal Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20/7/2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending ST Bus registration No. MH-40/N-8291?

2. Do petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation ? If yes, to what extent and from whom ?

3. What relief and order ?”

2.4. The Widow examined herself as the Witness by filing evidence Affidavit below Exh.15 and she was cross-examined on behalf of the Respondents. The copy of Report, upon which the crime was registered against the Bus Driver, the copies of the other Police Papers, copy of Post-mortem Report, copy of Certificate issued by the Proprietor of the Sweet Mart, medical bill and other relevant documents were brought on record during her evidence.

2.5. The Respondents examined the Bus Driver below Exh.30, who was cross-examined on behalf of the Claimants.

2.6. On appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Award.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants that the total claim was for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh) and the learned Tribunal granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,15,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh Fifteen Thousand). No compensation towards Future Prospects was granted. Though Deceased was receiving monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- (Rs. Nine Thousand), the notional income of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) per month was granted. The minimum wages at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand) Per Month should have been considered on the basis of the Government Notification. After the accident Deceased was hospitalized and the medical bill of Rs.21,000/- (Rs. Twenty One Thousand) brought on record by the