The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of key provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the calculation of total loss of dependency, future prospects, and claims on conventional heads, as interpreted by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) has been filed for enhancement of the compensation allowed to the claimants-appellants by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hajipur, Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.82 of 2003. By the order dated 02.08.2014 and award dated 02.03.2015, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow a sum of Rs.4,99,500/- towards the claim with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Insurance Company (respondent no.3) has been directed to pay the claimants the award amount.

Brief facts of the case

3. The facts of the case as revealed from the records are that on 15.06.2002 at about 8.00 PM the husband of the claimant no.1 was going to Mirzapur after finishing his office work on a jeep bearing Reg.No.UP3A 6198. The said jeep met an accident with a Tata Sumo and in the said accident husband of the claimant no.1 died. In connection with the said accident Case No.26 dated 16.06.2002 was registered in Chilh police station, Janpad Mirzapur and police submitted a charge-sheet against the driver Pappu Sonkar under Sections 279, 304A, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the claimant no.1 her husband was working in the Electro Jecknow at Mirzapur and his monthly salary was Rs.4100/-. At the time of accident and death he was 30 years old. The employer of the deceased certified the fact that the deceased was working in the said establishment and his monthly salary was Rs.4100/-.

4. The Insurance Company opposed the claim before the learned Tribunal on only ornamental grounds. Since the Insurance Company has not come in appeal and has not challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal, this Court need not go into any detail discussion on those ornamental grounds of the Insurance Company.

5. The learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues which are as under:-

**1- D;k ;g nkok okn iks’k.kh; gS\

2- D;k vkosnd dks eqvkotk nkok okn nkf[ky djus dk vf/kdkj vkSj dkj.k Fkk\

3- D;k vkosnd }kjk iz”uxr okgu ij nq?kZVuk ds fy, ftEesokn gksus dk dkj.k lR; vkSj lgh gS\ 4- D;k vkosndx.k nkok vkosnu ds vuqlkj eqvkotk ikus ds gdnkj gS\

5- D;k foi{khx.k nq?kZVuk vkSj eqvkots ds Hkqxrku ds fy, ftEesokj gS\

6- D;k vkosnd nkok vkosnu ds vuqlkj vuqrks’kksa dks ikus dk vf/kdkj gS\~**

Findings of the Tribunal

6. The learned Tribunal held that on the basis of the evidences on the record, it is proved that the husband of the claimant/applicant no.1 died in the accident due to fault of the driver. The learned Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.4100/- per month but while calculating the total loss of dependency, no future prospect was added to arrive at the correct multiplicand. The learned Tribunal allowed only Rs.2500/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- as spousal consortium. The learned Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal living expenses of the deceased. In this manner, the total claim amount was calculated at Rs.4,99,500/- and the respondent no.3 has been directed to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order/award as regards quantum on various grounds. Learned counsel submits that the deceased left behind his widow and two minor daughters. He was in employment of a private company and his salary was duly proved in course of evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the salary amount of Rs. 41,00/- per month but did not add future prospect at the rate of 40 % of the same while calculating the total dependency loss. H