The court upheld the Tribunal's finding on income assessment based on testimonies, emphasizing preponderance of probabilities over strict evidentiary requirements in MV Act compensation cases.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘MV Act’] by the Insurance Company [appellant] for setting aside/modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 23^rd April 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) inMAC PETITION No. 5483/16 [Old MACP No. 112/14] titled as Naresh Chander & Anr. v. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors.”

2. The basic grievance of appellant/Insurance Company relates to the computation of income by the MACT of the deceased at Rs.18,222/- per month, which was a combination of Rs.7,722/- per month claimed by the deceased’s family as his earnings from Om Shiv House Keeping Services, and Rs.10,500/- per month earned by him as a Sample Collection Executive at Diya Path Labs.

Incident

3. On 24^th September 2013, at about 11:40 A.M., Rustam aged 26 years, along with injured Rajesh [pillion rider], was riding a motorcycle bearing registration no. “DL 8S AT 4287” which was being driven by Rustam. When they reached the traffic intersection at Mahindra Park heading towards Azadpur, Delhi, a truck bearing registration no. “DL. 1G B 7382” [‘offending vehicle’], allegedly driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle.

4. Both fell down; Rustam was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle and Rajesh sustained grievous injuries. Rustam was declared “brought dead” at the hospital. The claims on behalf of both Rustam’s family and Rajesh were consolidated.

5. FIR No.293/2013 under Sections 279 /337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code 1806, ( IPC ) was registered at Police Station Mahindra Park, Delhi. Respondent no.3 [“driver”] & respondent no.4 [“registered owner”] filed their written statements and appellant/Insurance Company had also filed its written statement.

Impugned Award

6. On the basis of evidence, the MACT held that the claimants had proved, on the basis of ‘preponderance of probabilities’, that deceased Rustam sustained fatal injuries, and injured Rajesh sustained grievous injuries in the road accident due to negligence on part of respondent no.3/truck driver.

7. To calculate the benchmark income of deceased Rustam, aged 26 years old at the time of accident, it was considered that he was working as a “Ward Boy” and also doing part-time work as “Sample Collection Executive” and, therefore, earning a cumulative income of Rs.18,222/- per month. He was survived by his father and mother, Sh. Naresh Chander/respondent no.1 and Smt. Krishna/respondent no.2.

Compensation Awarded

8. Based on the cumulative income that deceased Rustam was generating from the two jobs, his income was assessed at Rs.18,222/. Future prospects at 40% per annum, and deduction of personal expenses at 50% (being a bachelor) were applied. The annual loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.1,53,065/- and a multiplier of ‘17’ was applied to compute the total of dependency at Rs.26,02,105/-. Compensation toward the loss of estate was awarded at Rs.15,000/-, and towards funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-. The total compensation was rounded of to Rs.26,32,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. For ease of reference, the said computation is reproduced below:

Evidence

9. The father of deceased/respondent no.1 herein [PW-1], stated in his testimony that deceased Rustam contributed to the family towards day-to-day expenses. Although, the duty hours of his son were from 11:00 A.M. to 07:00 P.M., he used to leave the house at