In motor accident claims, 'just compensation' requires calculating income without deducting statutory contributions like provident fund, adding future prospects for permanent employees, and applying appropriate multipliers and conventional head awards to ensure the amount is neither a windfall nor punitive, but reflects the actual loss.

JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

IOIN-1-FAO-1954-2005

As per report of Registry, notice has been issued to respondent No.2 but the same has not been received back yet.

Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and accordingly IOIN stands disposed of and main appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.

FAO-1954-2005

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 17.2.2005 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.122 of 2003 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which a sum of Rs.10,42,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Prem Kumar Goyal in a motor vehicular accident which allegedly took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-47-A-7248 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Trala bearing registration No.HR-47A/7248 driven by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner died in the accident in question, if so, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom OPP

3. Relief.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants, on account of death of Prem Kumar Goyal alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle and respondents have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel contended that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side. No future prospects have been added to the income of the deceased and since deceased was 38 years of age, 40% amount should have been added to the month