Compensation in motor accident claims must be based on accurate income assessments and relevant legal precedents for future prospects.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Issue notice to the respondents in Civil Misc. Appeal no.1712/2017. Mr. L. K. Purohit, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2 -Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC).

2. The present appeals have been preferred by the claimants as well as respondent- RSRTC assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 18.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar in Claim Case No.87/2013(Computer No.256/2014) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,54,000/- to the claimants as compensation on account of the death of Ugrasen in the accident which occurred on 04.12.2009. The appeals have been preferred on the ground of quantum of the award. The claimants have sought enhancement of the award, whereas, RSRTC has challenged the quantum of the award on the ground that the same is on the higher side.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally by this common order.

4. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is not correct as the income of Ugrasen at the time of the accident was Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has taken into account his income as Rs.4,500/- per month only. He further submits that mother of the deceased AD-1 Suman, in her statement stated before the Tribunal that her son Ugrasen was having a Marriage Palace and by management of the same, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and after death of her son, the Marriage Palace has to be closed. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent failed to bring nothing contrary to the statement of AD-1 Suman on record and, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of AD-1 Suman. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that other factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal for computation of the award are just and proper, therefore, the award should be recomputed while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and the same may be suitably enhanced.

6. Per contra, while opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and pressing his contentions raised in appeal, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal committed an error while considering the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on account of the fact that the daily income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.150/- per day. Learned counsel submits that while recording the finding on Issue No.2 in Para-24 of the judgment, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that no documentary evidence had been placed in support of the monthly income of the deceased. In these circumstances, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the income of the deceased as per Daily Wages Rates notified by the State Government. He further submits that even if it is presumed that the deceased was a skilled worker, then also the daily wage at the time of the accident in the year 2009 was Rs.115/- per day, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error while computing the award and taking into consideration Rs.150/- per day as the income of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed error while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of income in favour of claimants taking into consideration 50% of the income towards the future prospects of the deceased, and therefore, same is required to be recalculated @ 40% as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,2017 SC 5157. He further submits that the amount awar