Point of law: Various case laws relating to determination of just compensation, has settled down the law regarding various topics which are essential for determination of just compensation i.e. (a) deduction towards personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (b) selection of multiplier depending upon age of the deceased; (c) basis for applying multiplier as age of the deceased; (d) compensation permissible for conventional head for example loss of state, loss of consortium and funeral expenses; (e) addition of income as a future prospect for both whether the deceased was a permanent employee or self employed person

JUDGMENT :

1. This first appeal from order has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V.Act), against the award and order dated 31.8.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Shahjahanpur, (in short 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 172 of 2016 (Smt. Rinki Devi and others Vs. Jamuna Prasad and others), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (in short claimants) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that the deceased Raj Pal s/o Natthu Lal, husband of claimant No.1, Smt. Rinki Devi r/o village Ram Nagar Colony South, P.S Katra Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, was going on 22.3.2016, at 3.00. p.m. from his house to Katra Bazar. When he was passing through Mohalla Ram Nagar Colony on Jalalabad road, a Maruti WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724, which was being driven by respondent No.2, Man Singh, rash and negligently, dashed him from back, whereby severe injuries were caused on his head and legs. Deceased Raj Pal was carried to Siddh Vinayak Hospital, Bareilly for treatment. First Information Report (in short F.I.R) was lodged on 29.3.2016 by the claimant No.1, Smt. Rinki Devi, but during treatment the deceased died on 31.3.2016 due to injuries caused in the said accident.

3. A claim petition, for compensation of Rs.24,90,000/, was filed by the claimants against respondent-owner No.1, Jamuna Prasad, respondent No.2, driver Man Singh and respondent No.3, National Insurance Company-Insurer of the aforesaid car before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence produced by the claimants, dismissed the claim petition vide aforesaid award and order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned award and order, this appeal has been preferred.

4. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for claimants submits that the alleged accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 of vehicle WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724, wherein deceased Raj Pal received severe injuries and died later on, during treatment on 31.3.2016. Place of accident lies between headquarters of both districts Shahjahanpur and Bareilly. Deceased was admitted in Siddh Vinayak Hospital Bareilly for better treatment. The Tribunal, without applying its judicial mind, improperly and illegally assessed the evidence on record, produced by both the parties, whereas involvement of alleged vehicle has been proved not only by oral evidence of P.W-1 Rinki Devi, P.W-2 Rishi Pal, but also proved by documentary evidence i.e F.I.R, charge sheet, site plan and the bill voucher of medical treatment. The impugned award and order is based on surmises and conjencture which is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver) and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (Insurer) have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the alleged injuries due to which the deceased died, had not been caused in any accident caused by the driver of the alleged vehicle Maruti WagonR Car No. U.P.-74-K 8724; deceased had received injury in any other occurrence/incident at unknown place; he had been admitted in hospital situated at Bareilly which is more than 70-80 kilometers away from the place of accident as alleged by the claimants and F.I.R was lodged after 8 days of the accident. It has further been submitted that P.W-1 Rinki Devi is not an eye witness, P.W-2 Rishi Pal is not the resident of the nearby place of the occurrence; he is brother-in-law of the deceased; his presence, all of a sudden, at the place of occurrence is not natural, and his evidence has also n