The court clarified the proper method for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, particularly regarding income assessment and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.1187/2013 titled as “Premlata Devi & Ors. Vs. Chairman, RSRTC & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.7,41,042/- along with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 6-claimants (for short’ the claimants’).

2. CMA No.694/2017 has been filed by the appellants-RSRTC (for short ‘the RSRTC’) challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.767/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 694/2017:- Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the accident caused due to negligent and rash driving by the driver of the bus. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that in FIR (Ex.1), neither the number of bus nor the fact that the accident was caused by roadways bus was mentioned. FIR lodger Ghanshyam was not examined in the evidence by the claimants. So, issue No.1 be decided against the claimants. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal has committed error in granting 30% amount of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. As per the age of the deceased i.e. 44 years, it should be 25%. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified.

4. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 767/2017:- Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the deceased’s income as Rs.3822/- per month. As per the evidence, deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. So, the income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.7,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4th amount of deceased’s income towards personal expenses. As per dependency, it should be 1/5th. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and love & affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the RSRTC as well as learned counsel for the claimants.

6. It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce the cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time i.e. 147/- per day but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th amount of deceased’s income towards personal expenses because as per dependency, 1/4th amount of deceased’s income towards personal expenses is required to be deducted but the Tribunal has wrongly granted 30% amount of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. As per the age of the deceased, claimants are entitled to get 25% amount of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. The Tribunal has also awarded very meagre lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and love & affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to t