The main legal point established is that the assessment of compensation in motor accident claims should consider the deceased's income, future prospects, and loss of consortium, and should not be unjustly low.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved with inadequate compensation, awarded vide judgment dated 29.04.2002 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimants, being siblings of deceased Gautam Jain are before this Court by way of an appeal.

2. First of all, brief facts. On 07.01.1999, deceased Gautam Jain, Gopal along with Shobhalal, Mangilal, Chandanmal and Bothmal left their village Shivpur by a jeep No. RJ-06-C-4213 which was being driven by respondent No.1 – Om Prakash. At about 09:30 A.M. when jeep reached near Bhagana Talab, driver Om Prakash drove the jeep rashly and negligently due to which the jeep got down from road and over-turned in a pit. Due to impact of the over-turn, everyone in the jeep sustained serious injuries and Mangilal died on the spot. Later, Gautam Jain also succumbed to his injuries. On these averments, the widow, minor children of Gautam Jain and his mother filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned.

3. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were arraigned as driver, owner and the insurer of offending jeep respectively. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. All the averments contained in the claim petition were denied. They also denied liability for payment of compensation saying that the jeep was insured with insurer as a private vehicle and the deceased had travelled in the jeep as a passenger therefore, the jeep was being used for a hire and reward hence, insurance company is not liable. Additional objections regarding maintainability of the claim petition were also taken and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings submitted, framed various issues to adjudicate.

5. On appraisal of evidence and record, vide judgment dated 29.04.2002, the learned Tribunal held that Gautam Jain died due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the jeep by respondent No.1 – Om Prakash and he was working under directions and employment of respondent No.2 – Laxmilal, the owner of the vehicle involved. It decided issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly. Under issues No. 3 and 4, it was held that deceased was not a passenger in the jeep and the jeep was not being used for a hire and reward therefore, these issues were decided in favour of the claimants holding that they were entitled to and the respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, were liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,06,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. Dissatisfied with the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred present appeal for enhancement of compensation praying for higher compensation.

6. Shri Nikhil Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that deceased Gautam Jain was 32 years of age at the time of his death; that he was an insurance agent besides running a grocery shop and doing farming work; that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum; that he left behind six dependents. He further canvasses that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month only; secondly, by not making any addition thereto for future prospects of the deceased and thirdly deducting Rs.300/- per month out of it for personal expenses of the deceased and thus, awarded inadequate compensation. It is further argued that income of the deceased calculated by the Tribunal was arbitrary since it was an admitted position that there was no rebuttal of evidence in respect of the income of the deceased adduced by his wife on oath. Total six persons were dependents upon the deceased therefore, income of the deceased must have been considered as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the Tribunal has taken his age as 32 years and has applied multiplier of 16, but looking to young age of the