IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation must be assessed based on accurate income calculations and relevant legal precedents, ensuring just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The instant misc. appeal, seeking reduction of the awarded compensation, has been preferred by the Appellant/insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2016 whereby the MACT, Rajasamand has awarded Rs.17,01,000/-(after rounding off the amount of Rs.17,00,615/-) to the claimants.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.09.2014 the deceased-Kailash Chandra was standing on a road in front of a hotel and at around 11:00 PM, a bus bearing registration no. RJ18 PA 5858(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle), which was driven by the respondent no.5/driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased and as a result the deceased died on spot. The claim petition(Claim Case no. 274/2014) was filed before the MACT, Rajsamand(hereinafter as ‘learned tribunal’) by the respondent no.(s) 1 to 4 claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased.

3. The respondent no. 5 and 6 were proceeded against ex-parte. And the appellant/insurance company filed its reply to the claim petition alleged that the deceased was unemployed and his mental state was not right, and he suddenly came in front of the bus and got hit, thus, there there was no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, it was alleged by the appellant/insurance company before the learned tribunal that the it is not liable to pay the compensation as the there was violation of the conditions of the policy.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties two issues were framed. And the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) examined two witness (AD1 and AD2) and produced 9 documentary evidences. However, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the appellant/insurance company before the learned tribunal.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned tribunal vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2016(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) awarded Rs.17,01,000/-(after rounding off the amount of Rs.17,00,615/-) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition to the claimants(respondent no. 1 to 4) and held Respondent no. 5 & 6 and appellant/insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company.

7. While admitting the instant appeal a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 01.06.2016 stayed the execution of the impugned award qua the appellant/insurance company provided that appellant/insurance company shall deposit 70% of the awarded sum along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition. It was further directed that upon deposition of the aforesaid 70% sum of the awarded compensation, the same was to be disbursed to the claimant in terms of the learned tribunal’s directions subject to their furnishing of an undertaking that in case the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is allowed, they will refund back the said amount along with interest @6% p.a..

8. Since there is no dispute as to the factual matrix of the case, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company has challenged only the quantum of the compensation that is awarded by the learned tribunal. He submits that the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased has to be assessed in accordance with the Minimum Wages Notification that was prevalent at the time of the accident(i.e., 03.09.2014) considering the deceased as Semi-skilled workman, however, the learned tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5970/- per month instead of Rs.5174/- per month. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding the future prospects @50%, which should be @40% in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680]. He also submits that the learned tr