The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant Supreme Court judgments to determine the competency of the tractor driver and the calculation of compensation based on the deceased's age and income.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and decided finally.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1442/2012

2. The present appeal has been preferred against judgment and award dated 11.02.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in MAC Case No. 310/2009. Vide judgment and award dated 11.02.2012, the claim petition of the appellants was allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,93,000/- was awarded on account of the death of Smt. Pani in the accident which occurred on 28.02.2009.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.3 is not sustainable in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Admittedly, the driver of the tractor was holding a licence for driving light motor vehicle and the weight of the tractor was less than 7,500 Kg, therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the driver of tractor was authorized and competent to drive the tractor which was involved in the present case. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are incorrect and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5. Learned counsel further submits that age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident, therefore, a multiplier of 18 is required to be used in the present case while calculating the amount of compensation. He submits that the deceased was involved in the stitching and tailoring work and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has only taken into consideration Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased which is on a very lower side. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157, the loss of income towards future prospects has not been taken into consideration while computing the award.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No.3 on the ground that the tractor was being driven with a trolley and, therefore, it was being used for the purposes of transportation of the goods whereas the insurance cover was only with respect to the tractor insured towards the Farmer's Damage Policy, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. However, he is not in a position to controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-, taken into consideration as the income of the deceased, is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 11.02.2012 as well as the relevant record of the case.

8. The fact that at the time of death, Pani Devi was 22 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied and the amount of future prospects is also required to be taken into consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

9. Thus, the compensation amount in the present case is required to be recomputed as under:-

The age of deceased was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be applied.