The main legal point established is the application of 'just compensation' principles and the importance of following settled principles in determining fair compensation for death in a motor accident.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The appellants-claimants are not satisfied with the award of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, made in Motor accident Claims Case No.186/2013 on 18.05.2017. Hence, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act for enhancement of the award.

2. The appellants had claimed Rs.85,40,000/- whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,12,174/-.

3. The appellants are parents of Suresh Kumar. On 01.07.2012 Suresh Kumar was coming on a Motor Cycle at about 9:50PM, a Bus bearing Registration No.Ka-09F-4856 belonging to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation came rashly and negligently from behind and dashed the Motor Cycle causing instant death of Suresh Kumar. at the time of accident, Suresh Kumar was working as Granite Cutting Machine Operator in Shivalik Granite Factory situated at anchepalya Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkar and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Suresh Kumar was aged about 25 years at the time of his death. The accident is proved by documentary evidence such as FIR, Post Mortem Report and charge sheet submitted in the case along with statement of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence recorded at the time of incident. One of the claimant Harphool Singh was examined as a witness before the Tribunal and he deposed that the deceased was unmarried aged about 25 years having monthly income of Rs.15,000/- as he was working in the referred Granite Factory as Operator of the Granite Cutting Machine.

4. Since after notice, no one appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents, hence the award was made ex-parte.

5. Mr. Gaurav Dhiwan, learned counsel for the appellants contends that in absence of any material evidence to disbelieve the testimony of one of the claimant, the Tribunal should not have rejected the monthly income of the deceased and ought not to have taken the income of a daily wager for choosing multiplicand. Likewise considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier as held in Sarla Verma's case and affirmed in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, would have been of 18 but the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, though the Tribunal was aware of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case as the impugned order reveals that on the basis of that judgment, 50% of the income was deducted for personal expenses as the deceased Suresh Kumar was a bachelor.

6. On the other hand, Mr. H.V. Nandwana, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the Tribunal has awarded 'just compensation'. In absence of any documentary proof of income of the deceased, the settled principle is that the amount payable to a daily wager is appropriate multiplicand. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded 50% as future prospects of the deceased, which should not be more than 40% as held in Pranay Sethi's case in the matter of self-employed person or a person having no permanent employment.

7. The statutory requirement is that the Tribunal should pay 'just compensation' while reaching to a figure of 'just compensation', the settled principles ought to be followed. The amount of compensation should not be exorbitant to be a bonanza nor it should be so meagre to make a mockery of compensation. Only for the absence of documentary evidence of the income of the deceased, the claimed amount should not have been discarded by the Tribunal as the same was not exorbitant or unreasonable to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident. Neither it was challenged nor disproved that the deceased was a Granite Cutting Machine Operator, hence, the income of Rs. 500/-per day was not exorbitant one. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to accept the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the aforesaid amount for personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. after deducting the aforesaid 50%, the loss come