JUDGMENT :

These two miscellaneous appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of with consent of learned counsel for the parties by this common judgment.

M.A. No. 670/2014

2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded to the claimants by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge – III – Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C. No. 113/2012/Tr. Case No. 38/2012. By the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2014 and award dated 26.07.2014, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,13,840/- to appellant no. 1, Rs. 3,05,000/- to appellant no. 2 and Rs. 2,95,000/- to the appellant no. 3. The Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim till the date of payment.

M.A. No. 751/2014

3. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company (opposite party no. 1) for setting aside the judgment dated 30.01.2014 and the award dated 26.07.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 113/2012/Tr. Case No. 38/2012.

Brief facts of the case

4. The claimants filed the claim case before the Tribunal alleging that on 21.05.2004 while going to market on the Hero Honda and Hero Puch, they were dashed by a speeding truck bearing no. BPH-7037. It was alleged that the truck driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In the said accident Rajesh Kumar Mishra (brother of claimant no. 1) and his friend namely, Sujit Kumar Sen who were driving the vehicles died. The claimant no. 1 and her two minor daughters aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively who are appellant nos. 2 and 3 suffered permanent disability.

5. The transport owner did not appear in the Tribunal to contest the case. The insurance company (O.P. No.1) however filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’) and the learned Tribunal allowed the same. The insurance company, therefore, contested the claim. The learned Tribunal has in ultimate analysis adjudicated the claim and appellant no. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,13,840/- whereas appellant no. 2 and 3 have been allowed Rs. 3,05,000/- and Rs. 2,70,000/- respectively. These payments have been directed to be made with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case within a period of six months.

Submissions on behalf of the claimants

6. Mr. Madan Mohan, learned Advocate has submitted that there are ample materials in form of consistent evidence on the record that the appellant no. 1 was running a beauty parlour from which she was earning Rs. 400-500/- per day. The learned Tribunal has, though recorded the evidence to the aforesaid effect but for no reason or rhyme the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant no. 1 at Rs. 300/- per day only for purpose of calculating the loss of earning. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1 lost her entire business of beauty parlour because of her disability which has been found to the extent of 70% as per the disability certificate proved in the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not allowed any future prospect. In this connection, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 752 (para 10 & 11) and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1701 (para 18). It is his submission that considering the age of the claimants-appellants they would be entitled to add 40% of their monthly income as may be allowed by this Court as future prospect.

8. Learned counsel has further raised a grievance that the Tribunal has not allowed the actual medical bills sho