IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove the capacity to earn more after attaining the age of 60 and considered relevant judgments in determining the compensation for various losses.

JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants have challenged the judgment dated 12.04.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in M.a.C.P. No.624 of 1995.

2. Advocate Mr. Adnan Khan for Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal was required to grant prospective rise in income even in the case of deceased, who died at the age of 60, since the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, has considered the suitability of the earning capacity of the person up to the age of 60, hence, 10% future prospective rise was required to be added to the calculation. Mr. Khan further stated that since claimants are four in number, the deduction was required to be 1/4th for the personal expense of the deceased.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Khan stated that consortium loss is to be considered as per judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [2018 ACJ 2782], and amount under funeral expenses and loss of estate also requires consideration in accordance to the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra).

3. Countering the argument, Advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar submitted that for a person, who died at the age of 60, the income was required to be proved and his capacity to earn more after attaining the age of 60, would have been a matter of evidence to be appreciated in the Court, and in absence of any cogent evidence on record, submitted that no prospective rise is required to be assessed. Mr. Mazmudar further stated that the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) would not have any retrospective effect on the impugned judgment which was delivered on 12.04.2007.

4. The factual matrix, as could be culled out from the judgment of the Tribunal to the effect that on 02.04.1995, at about 7.15 in the evening, the deceased was on his foot on the road near Dhola Kua at the outskirt of village Lilora, suddenly a Truck, in full speed and without blowing horns came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, who died on the spot. The complaint was registered as I-Cr.No.94 of 1995.

5. The evidence of the claimants in connection to the income was that the deceased was agriculture labourer and was earning about 64,000/- per annum and had also an additional income of Rs.20,000/-, as he was supplying woods for bullock cart and ploughs; however, as per the observation of the Tribunal, no evidence was placed on record. It is to be noted that agriculture income is not taxable, hence, there would not be any accounting regarding the income generated from the agriculture activity. However, considering the age and the evidence of he being agriculture labourer, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.3,000/- per month, where taking into consideration the date of accident, the amount would be just and reasonable; however, following the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), 10% prospective rise was required to be calculated, and since there are four claimants, 1/4th deduction is required to be made for his personal expense; thus the yearly future loss would come as under:

5.1 The multiplier applied would be 9; hence, the dependency loss would come to Rs.2,67,300/- (29,700 x 9). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.2,67,300/- as dependency loss.

5.2 In view of the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), consortium loss is required to be granted only to the widow, since all the other claimants are major, hence, under the head of consortium loss, the amount would come to Rs.40,000/-.

5.3 Following the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expense, Rs.15,000/- each is granted.

6. In view of the above, compensation under differe