The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles of assessing compensation in motor accident claims, including the assessment of income, multiplier for loss of future income, and the need for just and reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli in Claim Case No.15/2018 vide award dated 29.03.2019. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,78,109/- along with interest of 8% from the date of application against claim of Rs.47,09,000/-.

2. The appellant was driving his Tempo on 23.08.2017 at about 7 PM near Gulab Bagh, Karauli. a Tanker bearing registration No.RJ-47/Ga-0612 came rashly and negligently and hit the Tempo as a result whereof the appellant got serious injuries and during course of treatment, his right leg was amputated. One more person in the Tempo namely Chiranji Lal died at the spot due to the accident.

3. The accident and the insurance of the offending Tanker with respondent No.2 are established by evidences on record and the same are not challenged in this appeal. The appellant was a Driver, which is established by driving license of the appellant at Ex.131. The certificate of registration of the Tempo in the name of the appellant is Ex.133 and the certificate of permanent disablement i.e. amputation of one of the leg is at Ex.132. The appellant claimed that he was contributing to the family Rs.12,000/- per month by earning from the said Tempo and after accident and amputation of leg is completely unable to drive the vehicle in future. The appellant further claimed that he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal accepted the claim of 70% disablement of the appellant and decided following compensation.

4. In absence of proof of income of the appellant Rs.5,382/- per month was taken, which was minimum wages of an unskilled labourer. The Tribunal multiplied Rs.5,382/- with 12 months and again with multiplier of 14 considering the age of the appellant as 45 years. Besides the aforesaid, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and pain and other small amounts relating to medical expenses for minor injuries etc. detailed in the impugned order and in total Rs.8,78,109/-.

5. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the claim of the claimant, who was a Carpenter and had claimed income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Court held that the claim of income of the Carpenter cannot be discarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of situation on the date of accident. In Jagdish's case (supra), accident had taken place on 24.11.2011. In the case on hand, the accident took place on 23.08.2017. In between the said period, the value of money drastically came down. Moreover, claim of a Driver having valid driving license of income of Rs.400/- per day by plying his own vehicle cannot be termed as exorbitant and unreasonable. Further, no documentary evidence of income of an auto Driver from his own auto, is normally possible unless the income is within the taxable range. Oral evidence of the claimant regarding his contribution to the family per month of Rs.12,000/- is already on the record. Therefore, there is no hesitation in accepting the claim of income of the appellant as Rs.12,000/- per month, therefore, yearly loss of income was Rs.1,44,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has adopted a just multiplicand in absence of any documentary evidence of the income of appellant. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti & anr. Etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. disposed of on 05.01.2021.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stated in Kirti's case (supra) in unequivocal terms that in each and every case, in absence of any documentary evidence of income, the daily wagers' income should be taken as multiplicand. Moreover, three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble