Compensation assessment for motor accident claims must accurately reflect income and consider established legal principles regarding future prospects and deductions for dependents.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The claimants/ appellants are in appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the M.V. Act vide judgment and decree of Award dated 26^th day of September, 2014 passed by learned District Judge-II cum Addl. Claim Tribunal, Chatra, in Claim Case No.50 of 2012 for the death of deceased (Sudhir Singh) who was serving as a cleaner on a passenger vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-13A 3097.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute as the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident while he was travelling in the said offending vehicle which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver.

3. The instant Appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs.4500/- per month as salary and Rs.60/- per day as Khuraki regarding which, C.W.1 and C.W.2 have stated in their deposition. The income of the deceased has not been controverted in the cross- examination, despite this, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.3,000/- per month without any basis.

4. It is also argued that at the time of death, he was survived by four dependents in whose favour the claim case was allowed, but in spite of taking 1/4^th as living expense of the deceased, 1/3^rd deduction was made for computing the annual dependency. Further, under the Conventional Head, only a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been awarded which is not in accordance with the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent –Insurance Company has defended the impugned judgment of Award of compensation. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has taken as 50% earning under the head of Future Prospect which should be 40% as per the settled law. So far as annual dependency is concerned, it is submitted that wife of the deceased, Anita Devi died and her name has been deleted from the Cause Title and only three dependents are left, as such, there is no error so far as the deduction as 1/3^rd as living expense of the deceased is concerned.

6. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @9% per annum which should be @6% per annum as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 16 SCC 121

7. Having considered the submissions of both the sides and perusing the materials on record, I find merit in the plea of the claimants for enhancement and accordingly, by taking the monthly income of the deceased aged about 35 years as Rs.4,000/-, Future prospect @ 40%, as such, the final compensation amount shall work out as under :-

8. The Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The payment shall be made within a month from the date of this order by the Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal will disburse the same to the claimants within two weeks.

9. It goes without saying that the amount already paid shall be deducted in final c