IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation in motor vehicle accident cases must be substantiated by evidence, and established legal guidelines should be followed for accurate assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The appellant/non-claimant No.3 has filed by the instant appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.894/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.15,21,000/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition on account of death of Sh. Balkishan.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of untimely death of their breadwinner late Sh. Balkishan. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that on 07.12.2010, while deceased along with her daughter was returning from Om Banna’s Than riding on Motorcycle No.RJ-19-SR-4648, and when it reached near Rohat at about 11:45 am, a bus RJ-19-P-8081) which was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. As a result of which, Balkishan sustained injuries and he died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 34 years of age and thus the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.68,58,000/-.

3. The non-claimants were summoned. After service of the summons, the non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their reply to claim petition while contesting the claim petition. 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, however, it was admitted that during the interregnum period i.e. from 09.06.2010 to 08.06.2010, the vehicle was insured with it. It was stated in the reply that the insurance company was not informed about the accident by the owner of the vehicle. It was further stated by the non-claimant No.3 that driver of the offending bus 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 Pinki and Pushpa. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited 14 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 03.04.2019 proceeded to partly allowed claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.15,21,000/- along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition while holding the appellant liable to pay the aforesaid compensation.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-, inasmuch as no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly wages at Rs.2990/- considering him as a skilled labour. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal qua non-pecuniary loss is also on higher side and the same also deserves to be awarded in view of Guidelines laid down by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded 50% future prospects, which looking to the age of the deceased, deserves to be 40%.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for cl