The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of income and calculation of compensation in motor accident claim cases, based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 4.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.313 of 2012 awarding a sum of Rs.4,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement and learned counsel submitted that deceased was Senior Technician in Moser Baer India Ltd, Greater Noida by profession and was getting Rs.14,512/-per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children, mother and father and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 is not in dispute. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 16 is also not in dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 16.5.2013 causing death of Rajeev Kumar Sharma who was 31 years of age and left behind him, widow, two minor children, mother and father. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/-per month. The deceased was Senior Technician by profession. The tribunal has committed grave error in not considering that the appellants had proved the income of the deceased by proper evidence. The witness was also examined so as to bring whom the contention that the deceased was a Senior Technician. The documentary evidence showing the income starts from Ex.40, PW-2 Raj Kumar Singh who is the Manager, Baer India Ltd. has been examined and he has also conveyed the income. The Tribunal has hyper technical stand in relying on the judgment of Saead Bashir Ahmad v. Md. Zamil, 2009 (1) TAC 794 and thereafter has gone to decide the matter on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Laxmi Devi v. Md. Tabyar, 2006 (2) TAC 394 and decide that he was earning Rs.3000/- p.m.. This is again fallacious as the documentary evidence on record just because the original was not brought. The evidence of the witnesses has not been accepted which is also against the Judgment in the case of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186, and, therefore, we are obliged to hold that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries.

7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 would also apply to the facts of this case.

8. As far as beneficial difference of limitation is concerned, the strict rules of civil procedure and evidence act are no required to adhered to.

9. In our case, prima facie it was proved that his income was Rs.14,512/-out of certain amounts were deducted and he was getting Rs.13,020/-. In view of the jud