The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation assessment under Section 163-A of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must adhere to the provisions of the Second Schedule, including the assessment of 'non-pecuniary heads' and 'loss of dependency'.

1. The above-captioned three appeals relate to one vehicular accident, which took place on 20th August, 2007 in which a self employed-Amit S/o Nafe Singh, aged 18 years; a labourer-Joginder@ Kala S/o Surat Singh, aged 30 years and labourer-Raman S/o Krishan Kumar, aged 19 years, had died. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above-captioned three appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. As per last order, service is complete. During the pendency of these appeals, Nafe Singh, one of the legal heirs of deceased-Amit, had died and now, the sole surviving legal heir of deceased-Amit is his mother-Bimla Devi.

2. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence of Claimants/legal heirs of deceased and other documentary evidence on record. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. in these appeals, is as under:-      

3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“This is a claim petition U/s 163-A of The Motor Vehicle’s Act, 1988 filed by parents of victim Amit @ Amit Kumar. The latter died in a vehicular accident occurred on 20.08.07 at about 22 hrs. at Katewara Mor, near Sarvodaya Senior Secondary School, Qutabgarh, Village Qutubgarh, Delhi. According to petitioners, on that day i.e. 19.08.07, their son Amit @ Amit Kumar was going somewhere alongwith his friends. They were riding a motorcycle no. HR-26A-3840. At about 22 hrs., when they reached near Katewara Mor, Sarvodya Senior Secondary School, Qutab Garg, Village Qutabgarh, Delhi, they met with an accident. Amit suffered severe injuries and died having succumbed to those injuries.

XXXXX

…….Apart from Amit Kumar and two other persons namely Joginder @ Kala and Raman Kumar @ Raman reportedly died in same accident.”

4. While computing the “loss of dependency”, the income of deceased-Amit was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,964/- per month, i.e. minimum wages payable to an unskilled person, and multiplier of 14 was applied. Deduction of 1/3rd towards “personal expenses” was made. No addition towards “future prospects” was made by the Tribunal. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the legal heirs of deceased-Amit is as under:-

5. The Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased-Joginder at Rs.3,709/- per month while taking the minimum wages of an unskilled person and no addition towards “future prospects” has been made. The multiplier applied is of 17 and 1/4th towards “personal expenses” has been deducted. The compensation granted to the legal heirs of deceased-Joginder is as under:-

6. In the case of deceased-Raman, minimum wages of a matriculate i.e. Rs.3,964/- per month were made the basis to assess the “loss of dependency” by the Tribunal while making no addition towards “future prospects” and by applying multiplier of 13. Deduction of 1/3rd towards “personal expenses” was made. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to legal heir of deceased-Raman is as under:-     

7. Despite service, the driver and owner of the insured vehicle have not contested before the Tribunal and this Court as well.

8. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground