In determining just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Tribunals should consider the future prospects of income enhancement of the deceased, but this factor may be offset by other factors such as the deceased's meager income and socioeconomic setting.

1. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter Rs. the Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 1-8-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tack)No. 2 Sikar (hereinafter Rs. the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 271/2005 awarding to claimants therein, now respondents before this court (hereinafter Rs. the claimants') the compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application for claim on account of death of one Lal Chand till the date of payment.

2. The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal on 6-10-2003 against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 'the RSRTC') the appellant owner of the bus and its driver Rewant Singh claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 30,45,000/- on account of loss suffered due to the death of Lal Chand occasioned in an accident on 25-8-2003. It was alleged in the claim petition that at the time of accident the deceased Lal Chand was going towards the factory where he worked when the bus of RSRTC with registration No. RJ-01/P-4067 driven rashly and negligently hit the deceased resulting in his death on the spot. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a carpenter at the relevant time with an income of Rs. 4500/- per month and that the claimants were dependent on the deceased for their day to day sustenance. Reply to the claim petition was filed by the RSRTC as also the Driver of the bus denying the averments of the claim petition. It was submitted that the accident was occasioned not only on account of the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle but the deceased was also negligent. Therefore there was contributory negligence of the deceased which resulted in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues:-

1- D;k fnukad 25 vxLr] 2003 dks lk;a 5 cts ds yxHkx xzke rkM+kl ftyk ukxkSj ds ikl foi{kh la[;k jsoar flag }kjk okgu cl RJ-01-P-4087 dks mrkoysiu@ykijokgh ls pyus ds dkj.k gqbZ nq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i yky pan ds pksVsa o mldh e`R;q gks x;h\

&izkFkhZx.k

2- D;k vkosndxu vkosnu i= ds [kaM 24 o 25 esa crk;s vuqlkj 30]45]000&@ :0 dh {krhiw.kZ jk'kh foi{kh la[;k 1 yxk;r 3 ls izkIr dj ldrs gSa\

&izkFkhZx.k

3- D;k foi{kh jkT; jksMost us vius tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj vnk;xh ds fy;s mRrjnk;h ugha gSA

&vizkFkhZ

3. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses, the father of the deceased, the employer of the deceased and the person who witnessed the accident and lodged the FIR were examined. On behalf of appellant RSRTC only the driver of the bus was the sole witness in defence. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence before it, vide award dated 1-8-2005 decided all issues in favour of the claimants and against the RSRTC and driver of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs. 5,65,000/- along with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. on 6-10-2003 till the date of payment. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award dated 1-8-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is excessive. It is submitted that not only there was any evidence of probative worth with regard to income of the deceased as there was no documentary proof with regard thereto but also only an ⅓ amount out of the amount of income of deceased was deducted, for arriving at the dependency of the claimants in spite of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and 1/2 amount of the income ought to have been deducted. Learned counsel submits that the award of Rs. 5,65,000/- with interest tantamounted to a windfall for the claimants beyond the mandate of Section 168 of the Act, which only provides for determination of just compensation to the claimants for the death/ injury in a motor accident. No other ground has been urged by the counsel for the appellant.

5. Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, lear