The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the deceased's income, future prospects, and suitable multipliers, guided by relevant Supreme Court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, C.G. in Claim Case No.155/2013, awarding total compensation of Rs.28,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3.

2. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has also filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging quantum of compensation.

3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 01.07.2013, deceased- Kishor Motwani, aged about 39 years and being proprietor of Nav Bharat Steel was earning Rs.2,83,500/- per annum, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.CG05-B/8892 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle- Kesh Kumar. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2-Jagjivan Singh and insured by Non-applicant No.3.

4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.75,55,000/-, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded looking to the age of the deceased i.e. more than 43 years and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

6. Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, in appeal as well as cross-appeal, submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,83,500/- per annum by taking into account the income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 (Ex.P-18C), which was filed by the wife of the deceased (AW-1) after the death of deceased i.e. on 05.08.2013, whereas the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased by taking into account the income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2010-2011 (Ex.P-15), 2011-2012 (Ex.P-16) & 2012-2013 (Ex.P-17), which were filed by the deceased when he was alive. Referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of V. Subbulakshmi & Ors. Vs S. Lakshmi & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1256, he further submits that the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of reliability of income tax return, has held that the income tax returns have rightly not been relied upon as the same have been filed after the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the income of the deceased needs to be reassessed suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 15, whereas it should be 14, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. more than 43 years and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, he submits that out of total income of deceased, future prospects should be added on half of the income of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushma H.R. and Anr. Vs Deepak Kumar Jha and Others reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C. 422 (SC).

7. Opposing the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company with respect to future prospects being added on half of the income of the deceased, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant/claimants that AW-1 Sunita Motwani, wife of deceased, has stated that after the death of deceased, the business run by him (deceased) has closed and the deceased was only the sole earning member of her f