Compensation for death in a motor accident must consider the deceased's potential income and appropriate deductions based on dependents, rather than relying solely on minimum wage assessments.

JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Falodi, Jodhpur (‘learned tribunal’) in MAC. No.06/2011 whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.11.2010 the driver of the Tanker bearing registration no.RJ19 IG 5314 dashed into Mangilal, who was riding his bike on the correct side of the road. As a result of the accident Mangilal suffered injuries and ultimately met his demise during the course of treatment in the hospital. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before the learned tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Mangilal (‘the deceased’). The respondent no.3-insurance company filed reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. On basis of pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed four issues. The appellants-claimants examined three witnesses (AW1 to AW3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.1 to Ex.12). The respondent no.3- insurance company failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition while fastening the liability, jointly and severally, on the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal the instant misc.appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side based on the minimum wages. He also submits that the deceased was an Advocate of 2.5 years standing and could not be compared to daily wagers. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding amount under the head of consortium, funeral expenses and future prospects on the lower side. He also submits that learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head of loss of estate and also erred making deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/4 on account of pesonal expenses.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that the learned tribunal has already awarded adequate amount of compensation hence, the same does not deserve to be enhanced. He also submits that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- as the appellants-claimants failed to produce any proof of income.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. As far as contention of the counsel for the appellants- respondents regarding the income is concerned this court finds that the learned tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- mainly on the grounds that no evidence has been produced by the appellants-claimants to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and also the deceased was an advocate with a standing of only two years.

6.1 This court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in case there is no documentary evidence to show monthly income of the deceased the income of such deceased person can be assessed by some guesswork however, such guesswork should not be detached from reality. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

“9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing