The court emphasizes maintaining the deceased's standard of living in compensation calculations, enhancing the award based on future prospects under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. The appellant-claimant has filed This appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MACC No.17/2022 by Second Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Ratlam, whereby a total compensation amount of Rs.9,54,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant.

2. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement in compensation amount up to Rs.66,50,000/-.

3. In short, the facts of the case are that on 21.08.2021 at about 5.30 to 5.40 pm, the deceased Salim was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 43 EJ 1215 slowly on safe side and when he was going towards Jaora from Hatpipaliya at that time the respondent no.1, was driving the offending vehicle No. MP-13-JB-1735 rashly and negligently, dashed down Salim Khan's vehicle due to which he suffered serious injuries on his head and various parts of body and expired during treatment.

4. The Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation for the death of deceased, has considered the entire evidence placed on record and after recording evidence Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- in the following heads:

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case as the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side hence, liable to be appropriately modified. The interest of 6% is also on very low as per settled law on this point. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects keeping in view the verdict of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 . In which it is held that every dependent is entitled for consortium, hence, the view of learned Trial Court regarding single consortium is also perverse. So far as the income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs. 8700/- per month and after deductions calculated loss of dependency as Rs.8,77,500/- which is also incorrect. Hence, prayed for awarding just and proper amount of compensation in the case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued in support of the impugned award and contended that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount in the case which does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and also the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra), Kirti (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) I find substance in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants.

8. Certainly, in this case, the claimants have not been produced any evidence regarding income. However, it is well settled that the income of claimant can be awarded on the basis of minimum wages prescribed by the State. In this regard, paragraph No.11 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and Another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , (2021) 2 SCC 166 , is condign to quote here:-

II. Assessment of monthly income:

“11. Second, although it is correct that the claimants have been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod's income, nor have they established his employment as a teacher; but that doesn't justify adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage while computing his income. From the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence on record and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was comparatively m