The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documentary evidence for income assessment and the application of relevant judgments to determine compensation and the rate of interest.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimantsappellants against the judgement and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 27.09.2018 in MACP No.404 of 2016 (Smt. Munni & others Vs. M/s Ahmadabad Bangal Roadways Pvt. Ltd and others), by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.7,77,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a motor accident claim petition for seeking compensation of her husband, who died in a road accident. As per averments in the petition, on 20.06.2016 at about 3:00 pm-4:00 pm, the deceased along with Anand, Mahesh and Arun was going from Nachkauli to Dadari Mandi on a Vehicle bearing No.UP 13 T 5479. After sometime, when they reached at Payal Family Dhaba, their tyre got punctured. Teetu and his colleague were repairing the puncture of the vehicle by parking the vehicle on the left corner, a truck bearing No.H.R. 38 U 2577 2023, which was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently, hit the aforesaid vehicle from behind. In this accident Teetu @ Mahendra got injured. Teetu died on the spot.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has not challenged the judgement and award of the Tribunal nor it has challenged the liability to pay compensation. The issue of negligence has attained finality as no appeal or cross objections are filed by the insurance company. Hence, the only question remains to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation and hence, additional facts are avoided.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was an agriculturalist. The learned Tribunal did not consider the actual income of the deceased and rather assumed his earning only Rs.6,000/- per month. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on lower-side and not granted as per decisions of the Apex Court. With regard to the rate of interest, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 6% per annum rate of interest which is even lower then the statutory rate of interest stipulated in U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (amended in 2011).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance vehemently submitted that appellants have not led any evidence regarding the income of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month because it is not proved that the deceased was an agriculturist. It is further submitted that the amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages is properly granted. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award which calls for any interference by this Court.

7. While considering the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased. The deceased was also selling whole-sale vegetables for which documentary evidence as Ext.-31C2/1 & 31C2/65 and likewise documents were produced. The counsel for the appellants before the Tribunal also had relied on the decision of this Court in (2017) III ACC 68 (DB) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reshma Devi & others. The Tribunal brushed aside the documentary evidence. The Tribunal relied on State of Harayan & Others Vs. Jasveer Kaur & Others 2004 (4) ACC, Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Sethi & Others 2003 (2) 326 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Satendra & others 2007 (324) and held that compensation should not be bonanza to the claimants nor should be such a meager amount and relying on the judgement of Reshma Devi (supra)