IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of just compensation in fatal accident cases, applying established precedents to enhance awards based on notional income and dependency.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Civil Misc. Appeals, seeking enhancement, have been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 (hereinafter as ‘the impugned award’) passed by the MACT, Sri Ganganagar [hereinafter as ‘the learned tribunal’] in MAC Case No.12/2009, 13/2009 & 14/2009 respectively, whereby the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions(filed under Section 166 of the Act) of the appellant/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in both MAC Case no.14/2009 and MAC Case no.13/2009 and Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009 along with interest @9% in all of the aforesaid claim petitions, while holding respondents No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep) & Respondent no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of the Bolero Jeep) jointly and severally liable to pay the respective compensation amounts. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise from the common impugned award, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.08.2008, Kuldeep(Son of the appellant/claimant) alongwith his wife Sanjula (daughter-in-law of the appellant/claimant) and Jaspal (grandson of the appellant) was travelling in the Bolero Jeep bearing registration no. RJ31 U 0182, which was being driven by the deceased Krishanlal met with an accident with the truck bearing registration no. PB05 5L 5635 and as a result of the accident Kuldeep (hereinafter as ‘the deceased-1’), Sanjula (hereinafter as ‘the deceased-2’) and Jaspal (hereinafter as ’the deceased-3’) died. Subsequently, the appellant/claimant filed MAC case no. 14/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-3), MAC case no.12/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-1) and MAC case no. 13/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-2) before the learned tribunal claiming compensation therein.

3. The respondents (except respondent no.4/driver of the truck) filed their reply to the claim petitions. And on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed seven issues.

4. The appellant/claimant examined four witnesses(AW1 to AW4) and produced documentary evidences (from Ex.1 to Ex.16) in support the claim petitions. The respondents examined one witness NAW1(Vishal Madan) and produced documentary evidence(Ex. NAW3/1, 3/3, 3/5 and Ex. NAW 5/2).

5. After hearing all the parties the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellant/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in both MAC Case no.14/2009 and MAC Case no.13/2009 and Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009 along with interest @9% in all of the aforesaid claim petitions, while holding respondents No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep) & Respondent no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of the Bolero Jeep) jointly and severally liable to pay the respective compensation amounts.

6. Aggrieved by the same, instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in the respective claim petitions.

7. Since there is no disputes as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant have restricted his arguments to the quantum of compensation as awarded in the respective claim petitions.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1399/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.14/2009 is under challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased-3.

9. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1072/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.12/2009 is under challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the deceased-1 as Rs. 7580/- per month which was evident from the Ex.18 (Reply dated 21.09.2012 by the concerned authority pursuant t