The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining compensation in fatal accident cases, including the assessment of the deceased's income, future prospects, loss of dependency, and interest rates.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 19th February 2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File no. 74/2013 titled Abdul Majeed Wani and Anr. v. Sajad Ahmad Wani and Ors., directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.23,70,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by claimants/respondents 1&2, before the Tribunal on 22nd March 2013, averring therein that deceased, Shahzad Hussain Wani S/o Abdul Majeed Wani, aged 32 years, died in an accident, which took place on 20th December 2012 at Gulshan Abad, Anantnag, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration No.JK03-5262, which was insured with appellant Insurance Company. Claimants/ Respondent no. 1 & 2 sought compensation to the tune of Rs.66,38,100/-. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed five Issues for determination, which are :

1. Whether on 20th December 2012, the deceased Shahzad Hussain Wani son of petitioners was walking on the extreme left of the road at Gulshan Abad Anantnag, when the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK03-5262, driven by its driver, respondent no. 1, rashly and negligently hit the deceased who received multiple injuries and was shifted for medical treatment but succumbed to his injuries? (OPP).

2. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1? (OPP).

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? (OPP).

4. Whether the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? (OPR3).

5. Relief. OP. Parties.

4. Claimants produced and examined four witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimants/respondent no. 2. Appellant Insurance Company did not produce any witness.

5. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/ respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs.23,70,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum.

6. Heard and considered.

7. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award for an amount of Rs.23,70,000/- in favour of respondents 1&2, after taking income of deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month, which came to be subsequently increased by 50% as future prospects income, thus making notional income of deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month for working out quantum of compensation. The income of deceased had to be proved by documentary evidence but no such evidence was made available before the court and the Tribunal on the other hand has relied upon the oral evidence and of its own has taken the monthly income of the deceased initially at Rs.20,000/- and subsequently has increased it by 50%. Though the petitioners had placed on record before the learned tribunal the copies of the licence and diploma certificate of the deceased and the copies of the accounts of sale of the medicines but there was no corroboratory documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim with regard to the income of the deceased. The learned tribunal being not satisfied with the evidence of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 with regard to the income of the deceased had discarded the same but has erred in taking the income of the deceased Rs.20,000/- per month. The income of the deceased taken by the learned tribunal is without any evidence and merely based on surmises and conjunctures, hence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the learned tribunal has to work out the just compensation but for working out the just compensation there has to be some