The court's decision emphasized the importance of evidence, relevant case law, and careful consideration of the deceased's income, future prospects, and deductions for personal and living expenses in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Jayant Nath, J. (Oral):

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company seeking to impugn the Award dated 29.04.2014 stating that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.

2. The matter came up for hearing on 10.09.2014 when learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3/caveator/Claimant has entered appearance and opposed the appeal. He was given an opportunity to file all relevant evidence/record of the trial court so that the matter could be heard today. The same has now been filed.

3. The brief facts are that the claim petition was filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pursuant to the death of Sh.Pawan Kumar Bansal in the motor vehicle accident. On 08.11.2013, the deceased Pawan Kumar Bansal with other co-passengers boarded a bus from Lucknow for Delhi. The bus was said to be driven by its driver/respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner in the morning at 4.30 A.M. in District Firozabad, U.P. It is urged that the driver of the bus lost control and struck against a stationary truck with great force. As a result of the collusion, Mr.Pawan Kumar Bansal sitting on the front seat of the bus sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

“(i) Whether the deceased Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 09.11.2013 at 4.30 A.M. within the jurisdiction of PS: Sirsaganj, Firozabad, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.UP 17 C 6788 by Respondent No.1?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) Relief.”

5. On issue No.1 of negligence the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the eye witness PW-2 Yogendra Singh, the record of the criminal case, namely, PW-2/2 i.e. the chargesheet filed, site plan, etc. which show that the driver of the offending vehicle respondent No.4 was arrested and chargesheeted by the police and is facing trial. The Tribunal also noted that the respondents led no evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 287 and the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 decided the issue in favour of the claimants, namely, that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus/respondent No.4.

6. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.74,34,192/- as follows:-

7. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was working as an Assistant Engineer with PWD, Meerut, U.P. and drawing a salary of Rs.75,280/- per month. This was proved by PW-3 Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel, Executive Engineer, PWD, Meerut, U.P. He produced the salary register showing the pay for the month of November 2013(Ex.PW-3/2), the seniority list of the engineers of the Department(Ex.PW-3/4). He testified that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.75,200/-per month. He confirmed that the date of birth of the deceased was 07.07.1960 and his date of retirement was 31.07.2020. The Tribunal after deducting income tax accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.8,53,659/- per annum. Taking the age of the deceased as 53 years, the multiplier of 11 was adopted. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, an addition of 15% was added towards future prospects/rise in cost of living. As the deceased was survived by his wife, his son who held to be dependent and his minor daughter, a deduction of 1/3rd was made towards personal and living expenses. Total loss of financial dependency was assessed at Rs.71,99,192/-.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made four submissions to impugn the award. He firstly submits that it was a clear case of composite negligence and between the offending bus driven by respondent No.4 and the stationary truc