The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with specific emphasis on the deceased's monthly income, future prospects, and loss of estate, as well as the legal principles established in (2017) AIR (SC) 5157 and (2021) 2 SCC 166.

JUDGMENT

1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dtd. 25/4/2014 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, in MACT Claim No.1/2012 whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungapur, (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 5, 60, 000.00 as compensation to the appellants- claimants.

2. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal are enumerated herein below:

4. The appellants-claimants are dependents of Gameer Singh, who was a contractor and on 19/8/2011, he expired in a road accident. An FIR to this effect was lodged at the Police Station Aaspur District Dungarpur. The appellants-claimants filed the Claim Application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 30, 22, 000.00 by impleading Devilal (Owner and driver of the vehicle) and United India Insurance Company (Insurer), as respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 5, 60, 000.00 as compensation to the appellant-claimants towards the death of Gameer Singh.

5. The bone contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the impugned award suffers from gross illegality inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the factum of monthly income of the deceased as well as it did not take into account the component of rise in income of the deceased by future prospects while evaluating the compensation awardable to the claimants. He further submits that at the time of the incident, the deceased Gameer Singh was aged 40 years, he was a Contractor and at the time of incident he was earning Rs. 50, 000.00 per month. The evidence to this effect has also been adduced in the trial. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000.00. He, thus, urges that suitable enhancement deserves to be ordered in the compensation awarded to the appellants-claimants by modifying the impugned award.

6. Per contra, Shri Anil Kaushik, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He submits that the learned Tribunal has not erred in passing the impugned judgment and award, and thus, the same does not require any interference by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have minutely scanned the material available on record. At the time of incident, the deceased was aged 40 years and was running a firm in the name and style of Rathore Construction. He owned two tractors, a JCB, other equipments used for the purpose of construction and agricultural work. Although it is pleaded that he was earning Rs. 50, 000.00 per month but no evidence has been produced in this regard. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and after scrutinizing the record, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that determination of monthly income of the deceased Gameer Singh may be increased from Rs. 4, 000.00 to Rs. 6, 000.00 per month. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased Gameer Singh is considered to be Rs. 6, 000.00 instead of Rs. 4, 000.00 per month as assessed by the learned Tribunal.

8. Learned Tribunal has not erred in deducting 1/3rd of the annual income of the deceased towards personal expenses as there were three dependents of the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased at the time incident, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 while computing the amount of award.

9. As per the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kirti and Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd