JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated 16.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. Appeal bearing FAO-3484-2013 has been preferred by the Insurance Company in the death case, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced, whereas, the second appeal bearing FAO-3320-2013 has been filed by the claimant in the injury case seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

[2] The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. 72,51,000/- as compensation in the death claim and a sum of Rs. 31,000/- to the injured claimant, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the respective claim petitions till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication.

FACTS

[3] Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, being the legal representatives of deceased-Mahender Singh, instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- along with interest on account of his death in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 14.12.2009, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4–Dinesh Kumar/driver of the offending vehicle.

[3.1] In the connected matter arising out of the same accident, the injured claimant also filed a separate claim petition under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the said occurrence on account of the very same act of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4.

[3.2] Both the claim petitions were contested by the driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company by filing their respective written statements.

[3.3] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, passed the common award dated 16.04.2013 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.

[4] Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 16.04.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited preferred FAO-3484-2013 in the death case, primarily contending that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal was on the higher side and that the income, multiplier and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads were wrongly computed, thereby calling for reduction of the award.

[4.1] On the other hand, the injured-claimant has filed FAO-3320-2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the nature of injuries suffered, the period of treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY (IN DEATH CASE).

[5] Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company assailed the impugned award on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal were contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled principles governing assessment of compensation under the Act. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the offending vehicle solely negligent, while completely ignoring the material on record indicating contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that the income of the deceased was taken at an exorbitantly high figure without any cogent documentary proof and in the absence of reliable evidence the same ought to have been assessed on a notional basis. Learned coun