The court established that a correct assessment of income and consideration of future prospects is essential for calculating just compensation for claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Shrey Singh, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company are present.

2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Gorakhpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 51 of 2013 (Sunita Singh and others vs. Smt. Poonam Gupta and others), whereby, for the untimely death of Rajesh Singh(deceased) on 26.03.2012, due to the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 23.03.2012, a compensation of Rs. 4,83,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been order to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Since there is no cross-appeal by owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle as such, the factum of accident and negligence of offending driver is not disputed by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation to the claimants because the deceased was working as a Manager in a brick kiln and was drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has disbelieved it and has assessed the income on notional basis at Rs.4,500/- per month.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that no compensation towards future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal, and lesser amounts have been awarded under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum, whereas, as per the mandate of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-National Insurance Company Limited submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the right amount of compensation to the claimants because no documentary proof of profession and income of deceased was submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is just and reasonable.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and record of the lower court.

9. The claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a Manager at a brick kiln and was drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, and also examined Roopchand as PW-3, the proprietor of Hari Bricks Field, Paniyara, District Maharajganj, in support thereof.

10. The tribunal believed that he was working only as a labourer at the brick kiln of PW-3, who was well educated, who was earning more than a labourer, who had a Tata truck having an agreement to pay Rs.13,000/- per month, but still assessed his income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is erroneous.

11. PW-3 Roopchand proved that the deceased Rajesh Singh was working at his brick kiln at the post of Manager on salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, from 12.04.2011, who died in an accident on 26.03.2012. PW-3 has proved the salary certificate and attendance of the deceased.

12. The claimants have also filed the original educational certificate of the deceased which prove that he passed the B.A. examin