Negligence can be established independently of a criminal case outcome, and compensation must be calculated based on legal principles and evidence.

1. Appellant is the Insurer of bus bearing No. DL-1PB-5035, which was involved in a vehicular accident on 29th November, 2010 and in the said accident, one Mohd. Jahangir, aged around 40 years (as per Post Mortem Report), who was working as rickshaw pullar, had died. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide impugned Award of 11th July, 2014, has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,53,476.80/- to respondents-claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. The facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as under:-

“Brief facts as epitomized in present petition are that on fateful day i.e. 29.11.2010 at about 08.05 pm, the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing no. DL-1PB-5035 running his vehicle bus in a rashly and negligent manner on the road and when the driver reached at Bharat Nagar Bus Stop, the vehicle hit the victim, who had come there to board the bus, resultantly causing fatal injuries to victim. Driver of the bus run away from the spot. The victim was removed to AIIMS Hospital for treatment where he died. An FIR No. 280/2010 under section 279/337/304A IPC with police station New Friends Colony was registered for this accident against erring driver - first respondent namely Krishan Pal.”

2. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence of Mohd. Chand, son of deceased (PW-2); Jeet Singh Rana (PW-3), who has deposed regarding registration of criminal case with respect to accident in question; Mahender Kumar (R2W1), owner of the bus in question; Raj Pal (R3W1), Assistant Manager of appellant-Insurance Company and S.D. Sharma, Head Clerk, State Transport Authority, Rajpur Road (R3W2), who has deposed regarding the permit issued in respect of bus in question.

3. On the strength of afore-referred evidence on record, impugned Award has been rendered. The Tribunal in the impugned Award has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.6,861.4/- p.m. and has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased and addition of 30% towards ‘future prospects’ has been made by the Tribunal and by applying multiplier of 14, loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs.7,68,476/-. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Loss of Dependency	Rs.7,68,476/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	Rs.1,00,000/-
3.	Loss of Love & Affection	Rs.75,000/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.9,53,476.80/-

4. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground that there is no proof of negligence of driver of bus in question. It is pointed out that there is no eye witness of this accident and the Tribunal has relied upon the factum of registration of a criminal case regarding the accident in question whereas the driver of bus in question has been acquitted in the criminal case and so, finding of negligence is liable to be set aside.

5. On the quantum of compensation awarded, learned counsel for appellant-insurer has drawn attention of this Court to a copy of Ration Card (EX PW1/A) of deceased, which indicates that the deceased was aged 55 years on 25th September, 2010 and submits that in view of decision of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270, addition towards future prospects has to be 10% and not 30%.

6. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant-insurer that appellant’s wife and his widowed daughter were dependent upon him and so, deduction towards ‘personal expenses’ of deceased ought to have been 50% and not 1/3rd. It is further submitted by appellant’s counsel that as per evidence of R3W2-Head Clerk from concerned Transport Authority, the owner of the bus in question was not having a valid permit on the day of the accident and so, liability to pay compensation is of the owner o