The main legal point established is the application of legal precedents to determine fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The legal heirs of Pala Singh (deceased) are in appeal against the award dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for brevity 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')

2. The driver of truck bearing registration No. PB-03-AC-9106 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'); owner and insurer (i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) of the offending vehicle have been arrayed as respondents no. 1 to 3 respectively in the appeal.

3. The facts emanating from the record are that on 02.02.2014, Pala Singh was going to Trident Factory Dhaula where he was employed. He was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-01-D-3026 along-with other co-workers. On their way due to fog, the tata sumo dashed into the offending vehicle, which was parked on the road without any indicator or parking lights. As a result of the impact, Pala Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital but he succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. FIR No. 22, dated 02.02.2014 was registered at Police Station City, Barnala.

4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was filed. The Tribunal after considering the facts and on appreciating the evidence adduced, held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the offending vehicle, as it was wrongly parked on the road without any reflector or the parking lights being switched on. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,93,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.1,25,000/- under the conventional heads.

5. In the claim petition, it was pleaded that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years and was working with Trident India Limited, Dhaula. The appointment letter of the deceased was produced as Ex.P1 and the salary slip was produced as Ex.P2. As per the salary slip the deceased was earning Rs.7718/- per month and after deduction of provident fund etc. his carry home salary was Rs.6868/-. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month by relying upon his basic salary. 1/3rd deduction for self-expenses was made and multiplier of 16 was applied.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-. As per salary slip, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.7718/- per month and the compensation should have been calculated by considering his gross salary. He further contends that the deceased was survived by four dependants and the Tribunal erred in making 1/3rd deduction for self-expenses instead of 1/4th. His grievance is that no future prospects have been awarded.

8. Learned counsel for the insurer defends the award and resisted any further enhancement. He argues that as per the postmortem report the deceased was 30 years old whereas, the claimants in the claim petition had pleaded him to be 35 years. His grievance is that the amount awarded under the conventional heads are on the higher side.

9. From the perusal of the appointment letter, it is evident that initially the deceased was appointed for six months on temporary basis. The salary slip for the month of January 2014, was produced meaning thereby, that he continued for almost five years with the employer and he was having a gross salary of Rs.7718/- per month. The compensation shall be calculated by rounding of the figure to Rs.7720/-.

10. As, the deceased was below 40 years of age and was having a permanent job, having due regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi an