Court modified compensation due to miscalculation of income and incorrect application of multiplier, reinforcing the need for accurate assessment in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company- original opponent No.2-insurer of the Eicher Truck No. MH-14-TCF-788 against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.28 of 2012.

2. By the impugned judgment and award, the original opponent Nos.1 and 2 being the insurance company and vehicle owner were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation award of Rs.86,27,068/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of application, whereas claim against opponent Nos.3 to 6 stood dismissed.

3. Appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 28.10.2020 and this Court by an order dated 28.10.2020 was pleased to allow the Civil Application making necessary order of deposit and disbursement while staying the implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award. By an order dated 23.08.2022, record and proceedings were called for.

4. The Court observers that the Cross Objection No.64 of 2024 came to be filed by the claimants with delay and the delay came to be condoned by an order dated 12.03.2024 and by an order dated 26.03.2024, this Court had admitted the Cross Objection. The claimants are the widow, two daughters, son and mother of the deceased, who was serving as a Deputy Manager in Indian Oil Corporation at Ahmedabad. The accident occurred on 28.11.2011, when the deceased was occupying an Esteem Car driven by his colleague and had gone for official work to ONGC office at Sayla and were returning and while returning from Sayla to Muli in District Surendrangar, the accident occurred, where the erring Eicher Truck bearing No. MH-14-TCF-788 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner collided with the Esteem Car dragging the car and dashing with another stationary vehicle being a Dumper truck bearing No.GJ-13-W-1553. In connection with this accident, an FIR came to be registered as deceased was occupying the car sustained serious and fetal injuries dying on the spot.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award is granting excessive compensation and the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income at Rs.56,260/- per month. It is submitted that an error is committed in considering the prospective income as considering the date of birth of the deceased of the year 1961, the deceased was aged more than 50 years and therefore, the prospective income as applicable as per the reported judgment in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 has to be considered at 15% and not 30%.

6. Learned advocate has therefore, submitted that if the income and prospective income has to be considered as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), then the excess to the tune of Rs.21,51,768/- as awarded towards compensation.

7. The Court has then taken into consideration the Cross Objection filed by the claimants, wherein the case of the claimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the monthly income of the deceased and has not appreciated the salary slip appropriately. According to submission, the monthly income of the deceased was to the tune of Rs.1,02,032/- after the necessary deductions of Income Tax and Professional Tax still only Rs.56,260/- is considered as income per month.

8. Learned advocate has supported the decision of the Tribunal insofar as the application of the prospective income at 30% and als