In cases of composite negligence, claimants are entitled to full compensation, and non-impleadment of one of the tortfeasors is not a defense to reduce the compensation payable to the claimant. Future prospects and conventional heads should be considered in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2012 passed by the Court-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No. 191/2012 (1054/2009) by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,21,200/- to the claimants-appellants.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,21,200/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error by recording a finding that there was 60% contributory negligence of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. Counsel further submits that it is an admitted fact that the deceased was not plying the vehicle, so in any case, this cannot be a case of contributory negligence and at the most, it can be a case of composite negligence. Counsel submits that the deceased was a regular income tax payer and he was submitting his income tax returns regularly and his income tax returns (Exs. 10, 11, 12 & 13) were produced by the claimants-appellants, but the same were not relied upon by the Tribunal for determining his income.

4. Counsel submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., reported in 2015 (2) R.A.R. 193 (SC). Counsel submits that even under the conventional head, a petty amount of Rs. 25,000/- has only been awarded. He, therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgments of Pranay Sethi (supra) & Khenyei (supra).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 22.09.2012 does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants with respect to re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) & Khenyei (supra).

7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 22.09.2012 as well as the other relevant documents available on record.

8. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 10.03.2009 when the deceased-Rambabu was going on with his son in a Jeep bearing No. RJ-06-C-7704 from Sanganer to Diggi. At about 7:00 PM to 7:30 PM, just before Jhadla Mod when they reached at Diggi Road, Mahindra Jeep vehicle i.e. RJ-14-TA-5146 came from the wrong side. The driver of the aforementioned jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which hit the jeep of the claimants. In the aforesaid accident, Rambabu died and after his death, the claim petition was filed by the claimants-appellants. The Tribunal, while deciding issue Nos. 1 & 2, came to the conclusion that there was 60% contributory negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle of Jeep No. RJ-06-C-7704 where the accident occurred. The site plan is marked as 'X-1' which indicates that the driver of the Jeep No. RJ-06-C-7704 has driven the vehicle in wrong side. The Tribunal has