Point of Law: order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsels for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.4.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.52 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.6,21,500/- with interest at the rate of 5% as compensation.

3. On the last occasion, we have requested Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for appellant to keep the officer present as we are of the opinion that judgment of Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (1) T.A.C. 637 (S.C.) and the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi and 2 others decided on 27.7.2016 wherein one of us (Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) was a member of the Bench, may apply to the facts of this case as the Tribunal had not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellant Sri Amit Manohar relying on the decision of Apex Court that multiplier of 17 was taken with the help of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not sustainable in view of the decision of Supreme Court in The Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C. Vs. Sripriya and others 2007 (3) T.A.C. 27.

5. Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for claimants has submitted that he would like to argue for enhancement and Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for appellant had contended that he would like to argue for contributory negligence of the driver and also argue that the jeep driver, owner and Insurance company are not joined as parties.

6. We have tried for conciliation in this matter on the basis of decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and also perused the record. We are thankful to Sri Amit Manohar who has taken assistance of Sri N.K. Srivastava on the panel Advocate of National Insurance Company, Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent and also Sri F.H. Rizvi who has deputed by the Insurance Company is present before this Court today for amicable resolution of the dispute so that insurance company can save interest as the grounds raised are now covered by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra).

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent counsel that the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident and was in the profession of selling the fruits. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.4,500/- which is not just and proper. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income as the judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 was applicable in those times but now the compensation has to be considered in light of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is submitted that the judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra) was not available in those time and in the alternative it is submitted that even if the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has not to be applied the compensation be re-determined.

8. The income of the deceased considered at Rs.4500/-per month has been considered by the Tribunal without any proof and is on higher side. The multiplier applicable is also on the higher side. It is further submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd as he was survived by widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and parents. It is also submitted that interest should be 6% and not 12%. It is further submitted by Sri Amit Manohar that no fitness certificate was produced.

9. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, we have perused the record. The learned Tribunal has considered this issue threadbare. As far as the deceased was concerned the vehic