The court held that the earnings of the deceased should be fairly estimated for compensation purposes, emphasizing the benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act and applying appropriate deductions based on legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, granted, on account of death of Purshotam Lal Gupta, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 11.06.2011.

2. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by the persons, so made liable to challenge the Award and thus, findings so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality.

3. The specific case pleaded by the appellants-claimants in the claim petition is that Purshotam Lal Gupta (since deceased) was a registered medical practitioner and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and on this account, the appellants-claimants had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 30 lakh.

4. However, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had reached the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence, with regard to extent of earnings of Rs. 30,000/- per month, as such, has been established and considering the evidence, so adduced, the earnings of the deceased were taken to be Rs. 6000/- per month. While working upon the same, the deduction was made to the extent of 1/3rd, on the count of 'personal expenses' and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier applied to work upon the compensation was 11' and thus, so working upon, learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,28,000/- and besides the same, another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was granted on the count 'loss of consortium' and Rs. 5,000/- each was granted on the counts of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. Thus, the total compensation worked upon was Rs. 5,48,000/-

5. Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so granted, the appellants-claimants, who are widow and son of the deceased, have filed the present appeal.

6. It is categoric claim of the appellants-claimants that Purshotam Lal Gupta was running a clinic as registered medical practitioner and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. Very true, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had reached the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence, with regard to the avocation, so followed by the deceased, as such, has been established. Even, the extent of his earnings have not been so established. But anyhow, considering the fact that Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent piece of legislation, the compensation, as such, has to be worked upon, while taking into consideration various circumstances, so spelt out in the evidence. Given the same, learned Tribunal had rightly considered the testimony of PW-4 Sunita, who was accompanying the deceased and sustained injuries in the accident in question. She has categorically stated about having taken lift in the car of the deceased and considering the same, learned Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the deceased was enjoying good economic status.

7. Considering it to be so, the earnings of the deceased, as such, has to be treated as more than that of unskilled worker. At the relevant time of accident, which took place on 11.06.2011, the earnings of the unskilled worker as prevalent in Haryana was to the extent of approximately Rs. 4700/- and of a skilled worker, was approx Rs. 5200/- per month. Considering the same and also keeping in view the fact of deceased maintaining a car, his earnings, in modest estimate, can conveniently be taken to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. Taking it to be so, the compensation granted by learned Tribunal, as per prevalent settled law, ca