IMPORTANT POINT
The court determined that the tribunal erred in calculating compensation by not considering the deceased's full income, leading to a revised compensation amount based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 248 of 2008.

2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the tribunal.

3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under:

3.1 The deceased Umeshkumar was a pedestrian who was hit by the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-6-B-8526 on 25.12.2007.

3.2 It is the case of claimants that due to such vehicular accident, deceased had suffered severe injuries and succumbed to such injuries.

3.3 The deceased was aged about 40 years, serving in Steelage Industries Limited and drawing salary of Rs. 6563/- per month + additional benefits. The deceased was survived by original claimants namely widow, two minor children and parents.

3.4 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of truck.

3.5 After appreciating evidence on record, the tribunal has found driver of the truck solely negligent for causing accident and held that deceased died due to vehicular accident due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck.

3.6 Thereafter, the tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account, salary of the deceased as Rs. 6563/- per months and considering 30% future rise of income applying 14 multiplier, awarded Rs. 9,55,584/- towards loss of dependency.

3.7 Further, tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards loss to the estate, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 10,05,584/- as compensation to the claimants.

3.8 Claimants are not satisfied with the compensation and chosen to file present appeal on the ground of non consideration of other income of deceased received from his employer thereby awarding less compensation under other conventional heads.

4. Submissions of the appellant:

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for original claimants would submit that claimants have proved actual income of deceased by submitting oral and documentary evidence, but tribunal has not considered such evidence in its proper perspective, which resulted into granting inadequate compensation to the claimants.

4.2 He would submit that to prove actual income of the deceased at the time of accident, claimants have examined following witnesses:

(1) Shwetakumari Umeshkumar Shrivastav at Exh.22

(2) Narendrakumar Balubhai Parmar at Exh.28

(3) Pranavbhai Vipinchnadra Pandya at Exh.39

(4) Anant Nareshbhai Panchal at Exh.42

4.3 He would further submit that deceased was serving in Steelage Industries Limited and his last few years’ salary income as well as salary slips from 01.07.2007 to 31.12.2007 were produced on record at Exh.33. The salary income chart showing his actual salary income with other benefits as on date of accident till superannuation was submitted at Ex.34. He has further stated that income tax return of the deceased as well as Form 16 were also submitted on record at Exh.59. He has drawn our attention that for the month of October 2007 and December 2007 deceased was paid a bonus and leave travel allowance respectively which was not at all considered by the tribunal while considering income of deceased.

4.4 According to learned advocate Mr. Hakim, if this Court would consider these two components which are part and parcel of earning of the deceased and claimants are beneficiary, then income which ought to have derived would be Rs. 7800/- per month instead of Rs. 6563/-.

4.5 Learned advocate Mr. Hakim would further submit that the deceased has not completed 40 years but he was in a