IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in calculating compensation for motor accident claims, future income prospects should be considered, deductions for personal expenses must reflect the actual number of dependents, and multipliers should be applied based on the deceased's age and family structure.

JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. These two appeals have arisen out of the common vehicular accident occurred on 02.02.2015. The awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba in MAC No. 48/2015 and MAC No. 50/2015, as such, they were heard and considered together.

Mac App No. 151/2020

2.This appeal has been filed against the award dated 29.02.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba in MAC No. 48/2015 titled 'Seema Devi & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors'.

3. Briefly stated the facts in the appeal are that Bhajan Lal S/o Prakash Chand R/o Village Raipur Nai Basti Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu was travelling in a vehicle (Alto Car) on 02.02.2015 from Kathua towards Bari Brahmana. The offending vehicle No. JK02AH-7473 was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the vehicle of deceased near Budhwani. The deceased received serious injuries due to this accident and died on his way to Hospital.

4. Respondents - 1 to 4, i.e., the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased hereinafter referred to as claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba on 19.08.2015. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether deceased Bhajan Lal S/o Sh. Prakash Chand R/o Raipur Nai Basti Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu while travelling in his own vehicle Alto car bearing Engine & Chassis No. 5365540 & 583358 from Kathua to Bari Brahmana met an accident with offending vehicle car (Chevrolet Spark) bearing registration No. JK02AH-7473 on 02.02.2015 at 9:00 A.M. at Budhwani Samba on Jammu-Pathankot National Highway as result deceased suffered crush injury forehead, fracture skull and expired on spot? OPP.

2. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-1.

3. Whether the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-1.

4. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom?

5. Relief? OP Parties.

5. The claimant No.1, besides herself examined Arvinder Singh and Naveen Chander as witnesses in support of their claim. The appellant Insurance Company did not choose to lead any evidence. The Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver. Issue Nos. 2 & 3 were also decided in favour of the claimants.

6. As this appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company is only on quantum, therefore, only issue No.4 is required to be considered in this appeal.

7. The appellant not being satisfied by the award has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal has made the deduction of tax on hypothetical basis without properly calculating the tax for the year 2014-2015. The claimants have not led any evidence to prove the salary certificate of the deceased, therefore, the award is perverse. The deductions of 1/4th on account of personal and living expenses has been wrongly made as the father was not the dependent and the multiplier too has not been correctly applied, thus, compensation has also been wrongly awarded and the award is passed on no evidence, thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. The Tribunal considering the salary certificate of the deceased who was working in the Indian Army issued by the Officer Commanding, 11 JAK Rifle which was not disputed by the appellant took monthly income of the deceased to be as Rs. 32,856/- and he was holding a permanent job, therefore, the Tribunal added 50% to the established income of the deceased for the purposes of computing of future income and prospectus. Accordingly the annual income of the deceased was calculated as Rs. 32,856 + 16428 = Rs. 48284/- which, in fact, should have been Rs. 49,284/- and, t