IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the method for calculating compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, focusing on deductions for personal expenses and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The appellant/non-claimant No.3 and claimants, both have filed by the instant appeals under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 02.02.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.198/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.28,24,712/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition on account of death of Sh. Nain Singh.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a claim petition under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of untimely death of their breadwinner late Sh. Nain Singh. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that on 08.07.2015, Nain Singh (deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-22-SN-4932 from Bewar to Pali. When the deceased reached near Jadan Bus Stand, then a Truck Trailer bearing registration number RJ-01-GA-2440, which was being plied by its driver, applied break of its vehicle and without using indicator turned his vehicle, as a result of which, the deceased who was plying his motorcycle, collided in the truck. On account of injuries sustained by him, Sh. Nain Singh died on the spot. An FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station Shivpura, District Pali as FIR No.88/2015. Charge Sheet (Ex.1) was filed against Nainu Kathat, driver/non-claimant No.1 of the offending vehicle in the competent court. In the claim petition, it was alleged that the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident and he was doing the works of RCC and by doing the aforesaid work, he was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. The claimants thus by filing the claim petition claimed compensation of Rs.91,63,000/- under various heads.

3. The non-claimants were summoned. After service of the summons, nobody appeared on behalf of non-claimants No.1 and 2, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered against them on 27.04.2016. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the averments therein for want of knowledge. It was stated in the reply that the deceased was plying the motorcycle without wearing helmet and he was not having valid and effective licence and the accident occurred due to his own negligence. It was further stated by the non-claimant No.3 that driver of the offending Truck Trailer was also not having valid and effective licence and thus on account of violation of conditions of the policy, the liability of paying compensation could not have been fastened upon the insurance company. It was further stated that the claimants have claimed excess amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, viz. AW.1 Shanti Devi and AW.2 Firoz. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited 25 documents. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the material placed before, it vide judgment and award dated 02.02.2017 proceeded to partly allowed claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.28,24,712/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 15.10.2015, the date of filing of claim petition while holding all the non-claimants jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation.

6. The claimants by way of filing the misc. appeal have prayed for enhancement of the compensation and the non-claimant No.3/ insurance company has challenged the judgment and award.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards his own expenses. He submits that looking to number of de