The court emphasized the necessity of accurately calculating compensation by including all income components and future prospects, leading to an enhanced award.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 35/2008 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,13,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants.

2. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded the amount as indicated above.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had wrongly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,700/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the deceased was an Ayurvedic Doctor and as per the income certificate (Ex.15), he was earning Rs. 18,105/- per month as salary but the Tribunal has wrongly deducted house rent allowance whereas house rent allowance should be added in the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas as per the dependency of the deceased it should be 1/4th. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects, whereas as per the age of the deceased i.e. 54 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to get 15% towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. Rs. 25,000/- lumpsum towards love and affection whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses whereas it should be Rs. 15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others v. Hari Singh Malviya and Others, reported in 2009 ACJ 1580.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,700/- per month and rightly deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal.

7. It is an admitted position that while calculating the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted the house rent allowance from the income of the deceased. So, in my considered opinion, house rent allowance should be added in the income of the deceased and after adding house rent allowance, income of the deceased comes to Rs. 16,465/- (Rs. 15,700 + Rs. 765) per month. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it should be 1/4th amount from the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has also not awarded amount towards future prospects, whereas 15% of the income of the deceased should have been awarded towards future prospects. The Tribunal awarded very meagre amount towards loss of consortium, love and affection and funeral expenses. So, in my considered opinion, amount towards loss of consortium and love and affection should be Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under: