Compensation claims must accurately reflect deceased's income and dependents, with contributions for future prospects strictly adhering to vehicular negligence principles.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. The claimants/appellants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded under Section 163A of the M.V. Act vide impugned Judgment/Award dated 22^nd August, 2012 passed by learned District Judge No.1-cum- MVACT, Giridih, in Claim Case No.63 of 2005.

2. As per the case of the claimants, it is alleged that on 22.07.2005, one Laxmi Narayan Ram (deceased) was going on Tempo bearing Registration No.JH-11B 8818 which was being driven by Driver, Murlidhar Yadav. The said tempo met with an accident with Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.JH-11B 8549 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Sarfuddin Ansari in which said Laxmi Narayan Ram sustained fatal injury and died while being taken to the Hospital.

3. Further, case of the claimants is that deceased was the owner of the Tempo in which he was travelling and was having cloth business from which he had monthly income of Rs.8500/-. Learned Tribunal accepted the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- only and awarded compensation of Rs.2,64,000/-. Learned Tribunal assessed the compensation and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- by holding that there was contributory negligence of both the vehicle to the extent of 50%.

4. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that in the oral evidence, it has come that the deceased was having monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month which remained undemolished in the cross-examination and without any contrary evidence, the income of the deceased of Rs.3,000/- per month has only been accepted.

5. Further, deceased was not the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, contributory negligence could not have been attributed to the deceased who was simply the owner and was travelling in the vehicle.

6. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal has not assessed the loss under the head of Future Prospect and meagre amount has been allowed under the conventional head. The deceased left behind ten dependents, for which, deduction under personal and living expenses should have been 1/5^th whereas only 1/3^rd has been taken. Rate of interest should have been awarded from the date of filing of claim application and not from the date of closing of evidence.

7. It is argued by the Learned counsel for the Insurance company and rightly so that the learned Tribunal has assigned specific reason for not accepting all the claimants to be the dependents of the deceased and to be particular the major daughters and major sons have been impleaded as dependents and further they cannot be regarded as dependents of the deceased. The dependents of the deceased will be claimant No.1, claimant No.6 (Minor daughter) and claimant No.10, the old aged mother of the deceased. Therefore, there was no infirmity so far as 1/3^rd deduction under the head of living expense of the deceased is concerned.

8. I find merit in the argument on behalf of the Insurance Company on the point of contributory negligence, that there is finding of the Tribunal that 50% of contributory negligence was on the driver of the vehicle on which the deceased owner was also travelling. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhuma Saha and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263 , the owner could not have claimed compensation for the part of negligence of his own vehicle.

9. Further, so far as income from the cloth business is concerned, altogether 18 documents have been exhibited on behalf of the claimants, but not a single chit of paper has been filed with regard to cloth business which is being claimed to have been carried out. Under the circumstances, I f