The court emphasized the correct calculation of compensation, future prospects, and non-pecuniary damages in motor accident claim cases, along with the application of the appropriate interest rate.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. The judgments of the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) impugned in these four appeals were rendered on four separate accident claim cases brought before the tribunal relating to the same motor vehicular accident. Since the evidence was led commonly during the inquiry into the said claim petitions and since some of the issues being raised in these appeals are identical, they have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment.

2. On 07.08.2007, at about 05:30 PM, a motor vehicular accident occurred involving collision between a WagonR car bearing registration no.DL-3CAW-3217 (the car) and a bus bearing registration no.HR-31-0503 (the offending vehicle) in the area of village Dewal, Nahar Pul within the jurisdiction of police station Ram Raj, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The offending vehicle was statedly driven by Amrish Kumar, it being owned by Smt. Kariman and being concededly insured against the third party risk with United India Insurance Company Ltd., all of whom were impleaded as party respondents in the claim petitions. Six persons were travelling in the car at the time of accident, they including Pramod Pal, Satish Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Girish Joshi, all of whom died due to the injuries suffered in addition to Rakesh & Gaurav who also sustained injuries (Gaurav later dying in the hospital).

3. The claim petitions on which the judgments passed are impugned in these appeals relate to the deaths of Pramod Pal, Jitender Kumar & Satish Kumar and the injuries suffered by Rakesh Kumar. The legal heirs of Pramod Pal brought the claim case on 05.09.2007, which was registered as MACT case no.30/11 (old no.571/2007) in which compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,14,075/- with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, was awarded. The legal heirs of Jitender Kumar brought their claim petition on 05.09.2007, which was registered as MACT case. No.29/11 (old no. 574/2007) in which compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,17,000/- with interest at the rate of seven and half percent (7.5%) was awarded from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The legal heirs of Satish Kumar brought their claim petition on 05.09.2007, registered as MACT case no.32/11 (old no. 570/2007), in which compensation in the sum of Rs. 21,85,000/- with interest at the rate of seven and half percent (7.5%) was granted from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Rakesh Kumar brought his claim petition for the injuries suffered on 05.09.2007, which was registered as MACT case No.33/11 (old no. 569/2007) in which compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of seven and half percent (7.5%) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. In all these cases, the insurance company having conceded that there was an insurance cover against third party risk, it was directed to indemnify the insured and the driver (principal tort-feasor) who had been jointly and severally liable to compensate.

4. The insurance company is in appeal against the awards passed in the claim petitions arising out of the deaths of Pramod Pal, Jitender Kumar and Satish Kumar questioning the method and calculation of the compensation, mainly, the loss of dependency, inter-alia, based on the element of future prospects. The claimants, on the other hand, while resisting the appeals of the insurance company defend the method of calculation of the loss of dependency and also raised grievances that compensation under the non-pecuniary heads of damages was highly inadequate. It is also pointed out that there is a variation in the rate of interest levied in the cases of deaths of Jitender Kumar and Satish Kumar.

5. Rakesh Kumar, by way of his appeal, on the other hand, questions the award on the ground that it is inadequate, primarily raising the issue that he had mustered the evidence to show tha