The court established the principle that compensation for fatal accidents should consider the deceased's actual income and future prospects, and held the respondents jointly and severally liable under Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

N.K. Mody, J.

This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 3080/07, as both the appeals are arising out of award dated 07/09/07 passed by II M.A.C.T., Dewas whereby two claim petitions were allowed and compensation was awarded holding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 liable for payment of compensation. In M.A. No. 3801/07 award under challenge is passed in Claim Case No. 77/06, while in M.A. No. 3080/07 award is passed in Claim Case No. 76/06. Short facts of the case are that claimants in both the appeals filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 27/01/06 at about 8.30 A.M. deceased Avdhesh Raghuvanshi and Bharat Bhatia were travelling in a Indica Car bearing registration No. MP/04-HT/8317, which was being owned and driven by one Anil Yadav. It was alleged that when the said Indica Car reached to Chinotha Jod, at that time met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MP/09-KD/2756 which was coming from opposite direction and was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of accident driver and owner of Indica Car Anil Yadav and also Avdhesh Raghuvanshi and Bharat Bhatia died on spot. It was prayed that the claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petitions were contested by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on various grounds. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed both the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,39,000/- in M.A. No. 3801/07 and a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/- in M.A. No. 3080/07 and respondent No. 4 was exonerated, against which both the appeals have been filed.

2. In M.A. No. 3080/07 wherein Mr. Anand Chouhan is the counsel for appellants submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,35,000/-, breakup of which is as under :--

3. It is submitted that the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, as the deceased was income tax payee of whom income tax returns are on record, which are marked as Ex. P/34 to Ex. P/38. It is submitted that apart from salary which was Rs. 60,000/- per year, deceased was also commission agent for supplying the labourers and was getting income of Rs. 50,000/- approximately from other sources. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in not taking into consideration the income of the deceased from other sources, which are well proved and well supported by the documentary evidence. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that the appeal filed by appellants be allowed and amount of compensation be enhanced.

4. In M.A. No. 3801/07 Mr. S.S. Nahar counsel for appellants submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 9,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,39,000/-, breakup of which is as under :--

5. It is submitted that the deceased was well qualified and was in a secured job. It is submitted that the deceased was appointed with Tata Teleservices Ltd. as is evident from the appointment letter Ex. P/32. It is submitted that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 18,152/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration only basic pay of Rs. 9,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that future prospects has also not been taken