Compensation assessments in fatal accident claims must account for actual dependency, future prospects, and appropriate multipliers, following statutory guidelines and relevant precedents.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. 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 30.04.2016 passed by Shri. Sunil Kumar, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court no.7, Bulandshahr, in MACP No. 266 of 2014 ( Smt. Kashmiri Devi and others vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another ), whereby, for the untimely death of Ankit in a road accident which occurred on 10.06.2014, a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants (mother, sister and brothers), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner U.P.S.R.T.C. of the offending Bus No. UP-15AT-4097.

3. Since no cross appeal has been filed by the owner and driver 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 deceased Ankit was a bachelor aged about 22 years at the time of accident, who was a labourer earning about Rs.9,000/- per month on which claimants were dependent, but the tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is grossly inadequate. It was further submitted that claimants were also entitled to get compensation for future prospects of the deceased @ 50% but the tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this account, which is erroneous. It was further submitted that the tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under non pecuniary heads. It was further submitted that keeping in view the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 18 was to be applied for assessing the compensation but the tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16, which requires enhancement.

5. It was further submitted that since the father of the deceased had already died before the accident, the claimants were entirely dependent on the deceased, as such, only 1/3rd amount should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

6. With these submissions it was prayed that appeal be allowed and enhanced compensation be paid to the claimants.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that since no documentary proof of occupation and income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation by taking the notional income of the deceased into consideration. It was further submitted that the deceased was studying in class 12 at the time of accident, who was not earning anything, hence, the tribunal has awarded the right amount of compensation which warrants no enhancement from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

8. With these submissions, it was prayed that claimants appeal be dismissed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal

10. The Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 held as under:-

“8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the payment of Rs. 11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire loan