IMPORTANT POINT
The Motor Vehicles Act mandates that courts award just compensation, which can exceed claimed amounts, based on proper assessment of income and future prospects.

ORDER :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. The claimants/appellants in MAC No.303/2016 have preferred this appeal against the award dated 27.11.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.195/2014, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,38,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization, while fastening liability on Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3.

2. The claimants/appellants in MAC No.304/2016 have preferred this appeal against the award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.191/2014, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,85,600/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization, while fastening liability on Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3.

3. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 13.07.2014, Ajay Bada (deceased in MAC No.303/2016) and Ashish Khakha (deceased in MAC No.304/2016) were returning from village Sukhri in the motorcycle. On the way, the driver – Mohan Bargah (non-applicant No.1) of a truck bearing registration No.MH-34-M-5067 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased persons, as a result of which the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and Ajay Bada died on the spot and Ashish Khakha died during course of treatment. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 – Santosh Kumar Singh and insured with non-applicant No.3 – Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. As per the claim petitions, deceased Ajay Bada was working as a meter reader and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas deceased Ashish Khakha was a watchman and he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month.

4. On claim petitions being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,64,000/- (in MAC No.303/2016) and Rs.20,98,144/- (in MAC No.304/2016), the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by the parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 3 & 4 of this judgment respectively. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants have filed the appeals for enhancement.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants (MAC No.303/2016) submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased Ajay Bada at Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas it should be Rs.6,000/- per month looking to the nature of work of the deceased person and even minimum wages was Rs.5,468/- per month at that point of time. She further submits that the deceased Ashish Khaka (MAC No.304/2016) was a watchman working in the irrigation department and as per his salary slip he was earning Rs.12,100/- per months. She further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that there is no such documentary evidence produced by the claimants regarding income of the deceased Ajay Bada. He further supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Before proceeding further, it may be