In the absence of proof of income, notional income should be Rs. 36,000 per annum, with deductions for dependents standardized based on family size.

JUDGMENT

Manjive Shukla, J.

Heard Sri. Amit Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Govind Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.

2. The appellants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded vide order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Faizabad in M.A.C.P. No. 180 of 2010 (Smt. Manju and others v. Santosh Kumar Pandey and another).

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Mr. Dinesh Kumar was moving on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP42-P/4915 and when he was on his left side on Jalalpur Kuchera road, one motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP42- M/3094 tried to overtake him and since one Pickup vehicle was also trying to overtake, in that process motorcycle No. UP42-M/3094 was hit by the Pickup vehicle and ultimately that motorcycle collided with motorcycle No.UP42-P/4915 and as a result Mr. Dinesh Kumar suffered serious injuries and was referred to Medical College at Lucknow but while he was being carried to Medical College, he died.

4. The claimants filed M.A.C.P. No. 180 of 2010 and pleaded that Mr. Dinesh Kumar had died due to negligence of the person driving motorcycle No. UP42-M/3094. The claimants also pleaded that at the time of accident motorcycle No. UP42-M/3094 was insured with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Iffico Tokio General Insurance Company Limited.

5. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record has held that the accident in question took place due to negligence of the person driving motorcycle No. UP42-M/3094 and since the said motorcycle was insured with Respondent No.2 i.e. Iffico Tokio General Insurance Company Limited therefore, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and accordingly, vide order dated 22.2.2011 has directed for payment of compensation amounting Rs. 2,23,000/- to the claimants along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the claimants led evidence before the learned Tribunal that deceased Dinesh Kumar was running a rice mill but learned Tribunal in absence of categorical evidence on record allowed only notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and by adding Rs. 3,000/- the total income of the deceased was calculated as Rs. 18,000/- per annum and on that basis, the compensation has been calculated whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohd. Tabbar and another, (2008) 2 TAC 394 has held that when there is no cogent proof of income of the deceased, then his notional income must be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum therefore, the learned Tribunal while treating the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum has acted in gross violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such the compensation awarded to the claimants needs to be enhanced by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in respect of notional income has also relied on judgment and order dated 29.1.2020 rendered by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 1908 of 2014 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Room Singh and others) and judgment and order dated 9.3.2016 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 840 of 2016 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lallu Ram Mishra and others).

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further argued that learned Tribunal while calculating the income available to the dependents has deducted one-third income from the total income of the deceased whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has provided that