1. A bus No.HP-48-0980, which was going from Baror to Holee (H.P) met with an accident on 01.03.2001. The said accident resulted into death of many passengers including the driver of the vehicle. One of the victims, namely, Deepak Raj Majahan, who hailed from Jammu also died in the said accident.

2. A claim petition came to be filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu on behalf of widow, one daughter and parents of deceased Deepak Raj Mahajan. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.16,58,600/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition under the following heads :-

1. Loss of dependency : Rs.16,23,600.00

2. Loss of consortium : Rs. 15,000.00

3. Loss to the estate : Rs. 15,000.00

4. Funeral expenses : Rs. 5,000.00

3. Being aggrieved of the said award, present appeal has been filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation on the following grounds:-

(a) That calculating the average income of deceased at Rs. 22,800/- per month which includes the future income, which the deceased would have earned, is based on no material.

(b) That family pension payable to the deceased was also required to be deducted from the gross income calculated by the learned Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that future prospects of the deceased has to be taken into consideration while assessing the dependency and economic loss to the dependants of the deceased. This arrangement has been made on the basis of the material available with the learned Tribunal. The plea that the family pension has to be deducted from the annual income assessed is not correct for the reason that it is peculiar loss to the claimants. It is further stated that compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory income and any contribution made by deceased like General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, LIC, etc., which are repayable to the employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason, are in fact the deferred payments and are savings and those cannot be deducted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that future income which would have accrued to the deceased, has been calculated without there being any basis. He states that future earnings cannot be considered unless all relevant facts are proved by reliable and cogent evidence. He placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1255.

7. While analyzing the import of the judgment (supra) there is no dispute that while calculating the future earnings of the deceased there has to be cogent and reliable evidence before the learned tribunal. The claimants are required to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. The import of the judgment clearly reveals that the claimants were required to prove that deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time. In other words, if the claimants would have been able to prove that the deceased would have earned more from time to time then alone they would be entitled to this increase. Admittedly, the deceased was working as Senior Assistant in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Bharmour and was at the age of 45 years. His chances of promotion were apparent and one could have safely drawn this conclusion that the deceased would have earned promotion till he attained the age of superannuation. It is not a case where no such view could be drawn that the deceased would earn future promotion also. Even, the learned tribunal was conscious of this fact that deceased would have earned further promotion and there would be increase in his salary. The learned tribunal has recorded the fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document