IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct calculation of income, consideration of future prospects, and the application of legal provisions related to interest and indemnification under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan and learned counsel for the respondent -Insurance Company, Mr. Pratyush Kumar.

2. The appellants / claimants namely, (1) Kajal Devi, wife of Late Rajen Diggar, (2) Anjana Devi, wife of Late Kali Diggar and (3) Diwakar Diggar, son of Late Rajen Diggar @ Rajendra Diggar have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bokaro in Motor Accident Claims Case No.30/2014, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,39,000/-without interest, but if the Insurance Company fails to indemnify the award within one month, the Insurance Company shall pay penal interest @ 6% per annum from the passing of the order till its realization.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has submitted, that the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic and the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/-per month, for which consistent evidence has been brought on record that deceased was earning Rs. 300-400/-per day. Apart from that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi & Others Vs. Jivrail Mian & Others, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, in absence of any evidence, has considered the income of the deceased, who was Carpenter and lost his life on 02.01.2001, to be Rs. 5,000/-per month, whereas in the present case, the unfortunate accident took place on 23.12.2013 and there is consistent oral evidence with regard to income of the deceased that deceased was earning Rs. 300-400/-per day, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/-per month, which may be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the future prospect of the deceased has not been considered, which ought to have been 40% as the deceased was aged about 22 years in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.4).

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the learned Tribunal, without assigning any reason, has not granted interest from the date of filing of claim application, which was filed in the year 2014 and has only granted interest @ 6% per annum, if the awarded amount is not paid to the claimants within one month from the date of award i.e. 01.02.2018, which may also be modified.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company, Mr. Pratyush Kumar has submitted, that under the conventional head, amount of Rs. 75,000/-has been paid, which ought to have been Rs. 70,000/-i.e. Rs. 40,000/-for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/-for loss of estate in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.8).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company, has thus submitted, that in such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with the impugned award.

8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the deceased Rajen Diggar died in a motor accident on 23.12.2013 at 7:00 p.m. when a Scorpio bearing registration no. JH-10AM 2979 dashed him, for which Bermo P.S. Case No. 231/2013 has been registered against the owner of the offending vehicle. After investigation, the police has submitted the charge sheet. The offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s National Insurance Company Limited vide Insurance Policy No. 17030031 / 13 / 6100007666 valid for the period from 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014. Thus, it appears that on the date of accident i.e. 23.12.2013, the vehicle was duly insured.

9. It appe