Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must consider gross income without arbitrary deductions and allow future prospects based on statutory guidelines, ensuring just compensation for victims' dependents.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in MACP No. 322 of 2013 ( Laxman Prasad Mishra and another vs. Brijesh Singh and others ), whereby, for the untimely death of Smt. Kusumlata Mishra in a motor accident that occurred on 02.05.2013, a compensation of Rs.11,93,204/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Bus No.UP53-BT-7702.

2. Since no cross appeal has been filed by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, as such, the factum of accident and negligence of the offending driver is not disputed by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that Kusumlata Mishra (deceased) was employed as a supervisor with the Department of Women and Child Welfare in Hata, District Kushinagar and was getting a gross salary of Rs.40,156/- per month, which was also proved by PW-3 Vijay Laxmi Ojha.

4. It was further submitted that the deceased was about 58 years old at the time of the accident, but no compensation towards future prospects of the deceased was granted by the Tribunal, whereas the claimants were entitled to get it at the rate of 20%, as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.

5. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has illegally not considered the house rent allowance and family planning allowance paid to the deceased for assessing compensation, whereas the gross salary being paid to the deceased should have been considered for assessing the compensation.

6. It was further submitted that on the gross salary of the deceased, which was Rs.4,81,872/- per annum, after claiming rebate of Rs.1,00,000/-, towards Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an income tax of Rs.18,800/- was payable, which should have been deducted by the Tribunal for assessing compensation, but the Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs.21,543/- towards income tax payable by the deceased, which was excessive.

7. It was further submitted that keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was about 58 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 9 was to be applied for assessing compensation, but the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 4, which requires enhancement.

8. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation under non-pecuniary heads, which requires substantial enhancement.

9. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal preferred by the appellants be allowed and enhanced compensation be paid to them.

10. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of grant of compensation for future prospects to the claimants, but has concluded that since the husband of the deceased was getting family pension of Rs.23,632/- per month and the son of the deceased was also offered compassionate appointment, as such, on this ground, the Tribunal refused to award any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased, which was perfectly justified and requires no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

11. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded the right amount of compensation to the claimants, which does not warrant any enhancement from this Cou