The court held that in cases of motor vehicle accidents resulting in death, the future prospects of the deceased and adequate compensation for general damages should be considered while determining the compensation payable to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23rd November, 2021 passed by the MAC Tribunal, 3rd Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in M.V. Case No. 115 of 2018 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8, 52,800/-in favour of appellants/petitioners.

2. The fact leading to filing of the case is that on 20.01.2018 at about 5.25 a.m. the victim, namely, Taraknath Dutta was travelling from Amtala towards Beldanga by bus being Registration No. WB/57/9540. The said bus was suddenly lost control and capsized in Nayanjali due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result, the victim sustained severe injuries on his person and succumbed to death. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded less compensation in favour of the Appellants/Claimants. Hence, this appeal preferred by them.

3. The appellants prayed for enhancement of quantum of compensation only on two grounds, i.e., the Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards specific head ‘future prospect’ and less amount awarded under the head of general damages. As such, the quantum of compensation is required to be assessed on the heads of future prospect and general damages.

4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the matter can be disposed of only on the basis of memo of appeal and certified copy of impugned judgment and award dated 23rd November, 2021. He prays for dispensing with call for lower court records and preparation of paper book as the matter is very simple. It can be decided on the basis of proposition laid down by the Apex Court. Learned Advocate relied a judgment of larger Bench of the Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Setty and Another, (2017) 16 SCC 680 to support his contention that the General damages should have Rs. 70,000/-in place of Rs. 9,000/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal had not considered the future prospect of the victim whose earning was proved as Rs. 8,200/-per month from his service and his age was 45 years at the time of his death. Therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have added 25% in case of self-employed or on a fixed salary where the deceased between age of 40 to 50 years. That addition was not allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellants filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation only on those two heads. Appellants have no other grievances in this appeal. There are no disputes regarding other quantum of compensation awarded on other heads or multiplier or deduction. Therefore, learned advocate prays for only addition of 25% towards future prospect on the total annual income and Rs. 70,000/-as general damages in place of 9,000/-.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company also candidly submitted that matter can be disposed of on the basis of judgment and award dated 23rd November, 2021. There is no need to call for lower court record and preparation of paper book.

6. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of either party. Preparation of paper book and calling of Lower Court Records from Tribunal is dispensed with.

7. The issues raised by Appellant’s side are very simple. Firstly, whether amount under the head ‘general damages’ can be enhanced from 9,000/-to 70,000/-and future prospect can be added @ 25% on self-employed or on a fixed salary of the deceased, where the deceased’s age was between 40 to 50 years.

8. It is undisputed about the actual income of the victim at the time of accident, age and accident, which was took place due to negligent driving of the driver. It is also not disputed about the deduction on loss of income of the victim towards his personal and living expenses if he would have alive.

9.