IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of definite proof of income, the social status and nature of work of the deceased should be considered for compensation assessment.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) against the judgment/award dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.172/2014 (NCV No.3183/14) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been partly allowed and an award for an amount of Rs.10,05,748/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition has been passed in favour of the claimants.

It is relevant to note that Smt. Paru Devi, mother of the deceased, was though impleaded as proforma non-claimant, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,748/- in her favour. In the present appeal too, she has been impleaded as proforma respondent no.7.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimants with the submission that on 19.01.2014, Satya Narayan was travelling as a pillion rider with his brother (non-claimant No.4) on motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ19-KS-0109 from Village Agolai to Mehram Nagar, Janadesar. At about 12:30 PM, near Dugar Sarhad, they were hit by the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ19-GS-4264 which was driven rashly and negligently on wrong side of the road by its driver – non-claimant No.1. As a result of the said accident, Satya Narayan succumbed to the injuries on 24.01.2014 while undergoing treatment in the hospital at Jodhpur. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants being the wife and daughter of deceased Satya Narayan, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,39,28,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,914/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,05,748/- in favour of the claimants-appellants, the break-up of which is as under :

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. Averring the compensation to be meagre, the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: Firstly, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs.4,914/- per month whereas the same ought to have been considered on basis of his income as a contractor and agriculturist wherefrom he was earning Rs.21,000/- per month which fact was proved on record. Secondly, a lumpsum amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- qua loss of consortium has been awarded whereas the same ought to have been awarded to each of the dependants with enhanced rate of 10% for every three years in terms of the ratio as laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal is totally in consonance with law and no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal, is made out.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The points that eme