Consistency in awarding compensation under conventional heads and the correct assessment of the deceased's annual income are crucial in determining fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 01.03.2002 passed in Claim Case No.965/1998 on the file of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Rajsamand, wherein and whereby the claim of the appellants seeking compensation against the respondents was partly allowed holding the respondents jointly and severely liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,88,444/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The present appeal is at the instance of the claimants. The challenge in the present appeal is to the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on the lower side. The Tribunal has not properly assessed the annual income of the deceased. He further contends that other benefits granted under the conventional heads were also not proper and future prospects were also not taken into consideration. It is also contended that the deduction towards personal expenses was not properly fixed depending on the number of dependents. In these circumstances, he requests for enhancement.

4. The learned counsel representing the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has fixed the annual earnings basing on the average income of three Income Tax Returns filed on behalf of the deceased, who was running Rajan Metal Industries, and such fixation does not suffer from any illegality and requires no interference of this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent No.1-owner.

6. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was running Rajan Metal Industries, which is a proprietorship concern. The claimants filed three Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Financial Year 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 i.e. relevant to the Assessment year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 showing his income as Rs. 65,989/-, Rs. 75,914/-, Rs. 91,590/-respectively vide Exhibit-9 to 11. The Tribunal has taken average annual income of the deceased as Rs.72,376/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the approach of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma & Anr., reported in 2015 ACJ 1239, wherein the Apex Court has adopted the Income Tax Return to assess the loss of income of the deceased therein. In the present case, the last annual income of the deceased was Rs.91,590/-. Instead of that income, the Tribunal has taken the average annual income of the three Financial Years-1995-96, 1996-97 and 199798, which is incorrect and contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. Thus, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 91,590/-.

7. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards future prospects. The deceased was self-employed and he was 50 years of age. Therefore, there ought to be an addition of 25% of the annual income towards future prospects. 25% of the annual income comes to Rs.22,897/-(91,590 X 25/100=Rs.22,897). Thus, total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,14,787/-(Rs.91,590/- + Rs.22,897/-=Rs.1,14,787).

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants-claimants are the children of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/-towards loss of love & affection and loss of consortium, which is contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of (i) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in 2020 ACJ 2131, and (iii) New India Assurance Col. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwati, reported in 2020 ACJ 2321. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of S