The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 220-A(3) of the Rules of 1998 for determining future prospects and the use of the multiplier as per the Second Schedule to the Act for calculating total dependency.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T. Court No.6, Lakhimpur Kheri (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in a fatal road accident.

2. The claimants, who are seven in number, are all appellants in this appeal. They are the dependents of the late Vinod Kumar, who died in a road accident on 19.09.2012. The seven appellants shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'the claimants', except where the context requires individual reference. Respondent no.1, Vijay Kumar Chopra is the owner of the offending vehicle, a truck that caused the fatal accident. He shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the owner'. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Kutchehari Road, Branch Lakhimpur Kheri is the second respondent to the appeal, and likewise, to the claim petition. They are the insurers of the offending vehicle. Hereinafter, the second respondent aforesaid shall be referred to as 'the insurers'. Abdul Kader, the third respondent to the appeal and to the claim petition as well, is the driver of the offending vehicle. He shall be referred to in this judgment as 'the driver'.

3. The claimants' case in brief is that on 19.09.2012, the deceased Vinod Kumar had left home, riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP-31U-9957, carrying, in secure position, a gas cylinder to the Indane Gas Agency. He was going there to fetch a full cylinder of LPG. At about 8:30 in the morning, as the deceased was moving on the road on his left hand side in front of the Ajmani International School, the driver of truck bearing Registration No. UP-40T-0055 appeared on the scene, driving his vehicle negligently and at a high speed. He hit the deceased's motorcycle leading to his death on the spot and badly damaging the two wheeler. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 34 years. He was a diesel engine mechanic and did farming as well. He owned 5 bigha land and cultivated another 50 bigha on contract.

4. It is the claimants' case that from his agricultural exploits, the deceased garnered an income of Rs.12,000/- per mensem while his work as a mechanic yielded a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. According to the claimants, therefore, the deceased earned a sum of Rs.17,000/-per month. He was a hard working man and in the event his life were not snuffed out in the accident, in the course of 2-3 years, he would have progressed to earn Rs.40,000-45,000/-per month. The accident, however, put an end to all prospects for the dependents of the deceased, whose future has been plunged into darkness. The dependents' source of livelihood has been annihilated. Amongst the claimants, Smt. Vinodini is the deceased's wife. She was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Besides the widow, the deceased has left behind four minor children amongst the claimants, to wit, Km. Pooja Devi, Km. Jyoti Devi, Nikhil Kumar and Jitin Kumar, aged 13 years, 10 years, 7 years and 2 years, in that order. Besides the aforesaid members of the deceased's nuclear family, he has left behind a dependent mother, Smt. Reshampati @ Kanti Devi aged 67 years and his father, Laxman Prasad aged 72 years. The claimants prayed before the Tribunal that they be awarded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in compensation for the loss of dependency, and under the conventional heads, besides a sum of Rs.40,000/-for the damage to the deceased's motorcycle sustained in the accident.

5. The owner and the driver have filed a joint written statement denying the claimants' case. They have said that the deceased attempted to overtake the offending truck and was hit by a Pickup (truck) proceeding from the opposite direction. However, the Police caught hold of the offending truck and implicated the driver in the accident. It is asserted that the driver held a valid and effect