IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must utilize the latest income tax return and apply proper deductions for dependents to ensure fair calculations in claims.

 JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in MA. No. 827 of 2014 and Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi learned counsel for the appellant-company in MA. No. 496 of 2015.

2. Both MA. No. 827 of 2014 and MA. No. 496 of 2015 arises out of the Judgment and order dated 20.09.2014 and award dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge-VII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 98/2011 by which the claim put forward by the lady-appellant in MA No. 827 of 2014 was allowed with direction to the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount of Rs. 25,19,616/-.

3. Both the parties are aggrieved and have preferred their respective appeal.

4. The ground taken in MA No. 827 of 2014 by the claimant-appellants is/are that:

(i) ‘the Tribunal’ took into account the average of the income tax return of the two years instead of the last return while calculating the amount;

(ii) when the dependents were more than three, then the deduction should have been one- forth and not one-third, as such, the amount has to be enhanced.

5. The Insurance Company on the other hand has preferred the appeal (MA. No. 496 of 2015) on the ground that the motorcycle met with an accident but the owner of the said motorcycle was not made party nor the insurance company was impleaded in the said case. Another ground has been taken that it was negligence on the part of the deceased that led to the accident.

6. The short fact of the case is that the claimant’s husband, Chandrahas Kumar Agrawal was moving alongwith a pillion rider from Mokama to Lakhisarai on 13.02.2011 on a Pulsar motorcycle (Reg. No. BR-28C-4358) when a Truck (Reg. No. AP-28TA-5466) overtook them and from the backside of the said truck, they were hit. The claimant’s husband died on the spot while the Pillion rider, who survived, lodged the FIR.

7. ‘The Tribunal’ took up the matter and issues were framed as under:

“I- whether the claim case is maintainable or not?

II- whether the accident took place due to rash and neglivent driving of the driver of the alleged vehicle?

III- whether the alleged vehicle involved in the accident was insured by Opposite Party No. 1 Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the alleged date and time of occurrence?

IV- whether the driving licence of the alleged driver and permit of the alleged vehicle was effective at the date and time of occurrence?

V- whether the monthly income of the deceased is genuine?

VI- whether the Opposite Party No. 1 Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd or owner of the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants?

VII- whether the claimants are entitled for other relief or reliefs?”

8. ‘The Tribunal’ went into the matter and having found the claim to be genuine/maintainable further held that it was due to the negligent driving of the truck driver which was insured with the Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (henceforth for short ‘the Insurance Company’) that the accident took place leading to the unfortunate death. Further, the truck was having a valid driving license and permit of the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. It accordingly, held ‘the Insurance Company’ liable for payment.

9. So far as the misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party is/are concerned, ‘the Tribunal’ held that the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law as it has been proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the