Point of Law: Vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 1st Additional District Judge, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 38 of 1992 (Radhey Shyam and others Vs. Qamar Uddin and others) awarding a sum of Rs.4,34,000/-as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard Mr. Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is of the year 1994, the National Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent has chosen not to appear in this case. This Court has no other option but to conduct the matter ex parte.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Rakesh Gupta in a road accident with the averments that on 13.9.1991, Rakesh Gupta-deceased was going towards railway station by his scooter, at that time bus bearing no. 81/1027 was coming from opposite side, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid bus being driven in such a manner dashed deceased’s scooter. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died during the treatment in the S.N. Hospital, Firozabad.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which is bad on facts and has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages.

7. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.1,000/-per month as considered by learned Tribunal. The income of Rs.1,000/-cannot be found fault with in the year of accident i.e. 1991 of a person, who was a bachelor doing business in a small village, therefore, submission that the income should be considered at Rs.4,000/-cannot be accepted. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was in the age bracket of 21-25 years at the time of accident, hence, 40% of income shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Companyvs.PranaySethi[2014(4) TAC637(SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 will be admissible in the light of the judgment of Hon'bleApexCourtin the case of Smt.SarlaVerma vs. DelhiTransport Corporation [2009 (2)TAC 677 (SC)].

8. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards non pecuniary damages. In the light of Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), parents/claimants shall be entitled to get Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [2021 (4) TAC (SC)]

9. Hence, the total amount of compensation, in view of the above discussions, payable to the appellants-claimants is being computed herein below: