The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-computation and enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's potential income, future prospects, and relevant legal principles from Supreme Court cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is appellant/claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.31 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition are that on 05.12.2014, the deceased Bisesar Patel was going to village Achhota and as soon as he reached near Karma Tractors, he was dashed by Truck (TATA 409) bearing registration No.CG/07/C/5833 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of such dash, Bisesar Patel sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. On account of death of Bisesar Patel, appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and sought total compensation amount of Rs.32,50,000/- under various heads, before the Tribunal, inter alia, stating that the deceased was aged 35 years and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by doing the furniture work.

4. Respondents filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. Parties led evidence.

5. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck (TATA 409) bearing registration No.CG/07/C/5833 by its driver/respondent No.1; the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died due to above accident; it was not proved that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions; awarded total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Having held as such, the Tribunal fixed the responsibility to pay compensation upon the respondents jointly and severally.

6. Shri Samir Singh and Shri Ashwell Franklin, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.3,000/- on notional basis. The Tribunal also erred in not granting any amount under the head 'future prospects' and that, the amount awarded under conventional heads is also on lower side. Therefore, he urged that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be modified. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

7. Per contra, Shri Robin A. Lal appears on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, while submitting that although the insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the award impugned, but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of total compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal carefully.

9. As regards the assessment of monthly income of the deceased, despite there being no documentary evidence on record to prove the exact income of the deceased, the Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence on record, looking to his nature of work, assessed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which in my considered opinion, is not appropriate. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the minimum wages as is prevailed at the time of accident, it can safely be held that he could have easily earned Rs.5,000/- per month by doi