Compensation in motor vehicle accident claims must consider future prospects of income and reflect the number of dependents, enhancing the initial award for justice.

ORDER :

1. This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 4.9.2019, passed by Member MACT, Jhabua, in Claim Case No.13/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2018, about 09:00 pm, deceased was going on a bike with his friend with due care at normal speed on correct side of the road. The respondent No. 1 Driver of the offending vehicle Toofan Jeep bearing Registration No. MP 09 BD 5048 was driving the same rashly and negligently and hit the deceased bike because of which the deceased suffered serious injuries on various parts of the body due to which he died.

3. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of deceased, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,65,000/-. The detail of the compensation amount is as under:

4. 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 Learned Tribunal should has allowed the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation. 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. 4500/- per month and after deduction calculated loss of dependency as Rs.4,95,000/- 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 more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a 7 motorcycle for commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a