IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for wrongful death must accurately reflect notional income and dependency, adhering to Supreme Court precedents.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. By way of these misc. appeals, the appellants have challenged the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in MACT Cases Nos.208/2015 & 209/2015; whereby, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellants and awarded quantum of compensation in their favour while holding the respondents-owner and driver, liable to pay the said quantum of compensation.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these misc. appeals, therefore, the same are decided together by this common order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2011, deceased Naveen and Bhavya were returning to their home with one of their relatives on a motorcycle from Ambaji Temple. At about 12.00 PM near Sembaliya Village, a GSRTC bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18/Y-4898, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to their motorcycle from behind and as a result whereof, Naveen and Bhavya sustained injuries and they died on the spot. FIR for the said incident came to be lodged at Police Station Kheraj (Sabarkantha) and charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending bus. Claim petitions were filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation with interest. Respondents were summoned through the notices and they filed reply to the claim petitions while denying averments contained in the claim petition.

4. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants in support of their claim petitions whereas, the respondents got examined three witnesses and as many as five documents in support of their case.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the claimants by awarding Rs.2,30,000/- (SBCMA No.3012/2017) and Rs.6.35,800/- (SBCMA No.3013/2017) as compensation in their favour and thus, being dissatisfied of the same, the appellants herein have preferred these misc. appeals.

6. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case in SBCMA No.3012/2017, learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants has restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, while submitting that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a meager compensation on account of the death of the deceased child. In SBCMA No.3013/2017, learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while calculating the quantum of compensation, as the same is on a lower side. He, also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in making a deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, which ought to have been 1/4th looking to the number of dependents i.e. 4 including father. He has also challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding income of the deceased. He thus, urges that the amount of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads viz. loss of income, loss of estate and loss of consortium, deserves to be enhanced/modified as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [2017 (16) SCC 680] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-GSRTC, opposes and submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and thus, the same does not warrants any interference by this Court.

8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as quantum of compensation to the appellants/claimants. However, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala and Ors. : [(2014) 1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased c