Point of Law: Rule 220A-3(i) of Rules is future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in actual salary or minimum wages of deceased.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 03.04.2017 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Claim Petition No.75 of 2013 (Nilofar v. Sarika Arora and others) partly allowing the claim of the claimant. This appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment.

2. The brief case of the claimant before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died in an accident on 14.08.2012 which was caused entirely by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.U.P.-T/1360. On the fateful day, the deceased was riding a motorcycle when the truck collided with him. At the time of his death, the deceased was 28 years old. The claimant-appellant was dependent on the deceased.

I. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

3. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2017 awarded compensation which is depicted in a tabulated form hereunder :

4. Shri Bijai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Ms.Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in this appeal:-

A. Whether the learned tribunal had correctly determined the income of the deceased in the record?

B. Whether learned tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads :-

(i) conventional heads,

(ii) future prospects,

(iii) multiplier, and

(iv) interest while computing the compensation?

4.(A) Income of the deceased:

5. The claimant asserted in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged in the sale of garments. The income of the deceased from his business was Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant-appellant introduced both the oral and documentary evidences to establish the income of the deceased. The learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned tribunal while declining to accept the income as asserted by the claimant held as under :

"32. With profound respect for Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I am of the opinion that both the above case laws do not help the claimant in as much as the papers pertaining to income tax return have not been specifically pleaded and the evidence is beyond the pleadings.

33. There is also no supporting evidence regarding his business. If he the deceased was engaged in the business, there should have been evidence regarding sale and purchase of the garments. There is no registration in the sales tax. There is no Books of accounts, bills vouchers, balance sheet, etc. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the source of income of the deceased could not be proved by the claimant.

34. Even in the case of absence of source of income, it cannot be said that an young major man would not have been earning any thing. The deceased must have been earning reasonable amount for the livelihood of himself and his family. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has rule in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohd. Tabbar, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 304