In motor accident claims, where documentary evidence of income is absent, courts may use minimum wage notifications as a baseline while applying reasonable guesswork to determine actual income. Compensation must include future prospects, appropriate multipliers based on age, and conventional heads like consortium to ensure just and equitable relief.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.02.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of deceased Manjit Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 24.10.2009.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/owner contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent/driver.

5. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the accident allegedly took place on 24.10.2009, whereas Manjit Singh expired on 03.05.2012, i.e., after a lapse of more than two and a half years. According to the learned counsel, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the death of Manjit Singh was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the said accident.

6. He also contended that FIR No. 341 dated 23.12.2009 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered after an unexplained delay of nearly two months from the date of the alleged occurrence, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version and suggests that the same was lodged with a view to claim compensation from the appellants.

7. It is further argued that the police, after due investigation, had submitted a cancellation report in the said FIR on 15.06.2010; however, this material fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while arriving at the impugned findings.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant did not examine two material eye- witnesses, namely, the ladies who were allegedly sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle at the time of the accident. In the absence of examination of these natural and material witnesses, it cannot be conclusively held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver.

9. It is contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the fact that, subsequent to the accident, a compromise was effected between the parties, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 32,000/- was paid to the claimant on compassionate grounds. It is lastly contended that the amount awarded on the higher side and deserves to be reduced. He further points out that a separate appeal bearing No.FAO-2883-2013 titled as Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs. Harpal and Anr. is filed by the respondent challenging the award on above-mentioned grounds. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be dismissed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of th