IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be based on minimum wages in the absence of proof of income, with deductions for personal expenses adjusted according to the number of dependents.

JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals(S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2469/2012, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2468/2012 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2470/2012), seeking reduction of the awarded compensations, have been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and order dated 18.07.2012(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by the MACT, Kushalgarh(hereinafter as ‘the learned tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 57/2009, MAC Case No. 58/2009 and MAC Case No. 40/2009 respectively. As all the three appeals arise from the common order, the same are being decided by this common order and facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2469/2012 are being taken illustratively and the claimants in all the respective appeals, though different but are being referred to as claimants for the sake of convenience.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 05.01.2009 Gehrilal, Ramesh, Lalji were standing near a road and a truck bearing registration no. RJ03 GA 0015(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Respondent no. 7/Driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit them and as a result of the accident all of them died on spot. At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company.

3. The claim case no. 57/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Lalji(hereinafter as ‘deceased-1’), Claim case no. 58/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Ramesh(hereinafter as ‘deceased-2’) and Claim Case no. 40/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Gehrilal(hereinafter as deceased-3). The appellant/insurance company, Respondent no. 6/owner and Respondent no. 7/driver in their reply to the claim petitions denied the averments made therein. The learned tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 4 issues.

4. The claimants examined three witness(AD1 to AD 3) and produced 17 documentary evidences. On the other hand the appellant/insurance company examined one witness(NAD1) and produced 11 documentary evidences.

5. After hearing the parties the learned tribunal vide the impugned award awarded Rs. 8,94,000/- as compensation in MAC Case No. 57/2009, Rs. 10,66,800/- in MAC Case No. 58/2009 and Rs.16,67,700/- in MAC Case No. 40/2009 along with interest @9% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment of the same and held the appellant/insurance company, respondent no. 6/owner and respondent no.7/driver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded in the respective claim petitions.

6. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/insurance company has preferred these misc. appeals before this court.

7. As there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company has restricted his arguments to the quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in the respective claim petitions.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 57/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012) that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-1(‘Lalji’) as Rs. 5,000/- per month in absence of any proof of income and the same ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in making the deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 instead of 1/4.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company further submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 58/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012) that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-2(‘Ramesh’) as Rs.6,000/- per month in absence of any proof of inc