Point of Law: There is every requirement to award future prospects. As per the said decision, having regard to the age of the deceased as 25 years as on the date of accident and as he was self-employed, 40% of the established income should be added towards future prospects.

JUDGMENT:

Challenge in this appeal is to the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.2841 of 2011, dated 11.01.2016.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company and gave anxious consideration to the contentions raised.

3. The limited point involved in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants contended that as against the claim for Rupees Twenty five lakhs, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,45,000/- only, which is highly disproportionate and therefore, it has to be enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has taken all the aspects into consideration and awarded just amount as compensation and therefore, the same requires no interference by this Court.

6. Thus, the point that arises for consideration is Whether the amount awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad in MVOP.No.2841 of 2011 through Award dated 11.01.2016 is unjustifiable, as contended by the appellants and if so, to what amount the appellants are entitled to as just compensation.

7. As per the version of the appellants, the deceased-Suman (hereinafter be referred as “the deceased”) was working as an auto driver and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and he was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of his family. It is not in dispute that appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased.

8. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.70,000/- per annum. The Tribunal observed that as per Ex.A-7-driving license, the deceased was holding driving license to drive LMV non-transport. However, the fact that has to be observed is that the appellants have not filed any substantive proof with regard to the occupation of the deceased. Whether the deceased was possessing any auto on his own is also not stated. At the same time, it has to be observed that the Tribunal did not indicate the basis on which it has taken a sum of Rs.70,000/- per annum as the income of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitting that the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.8,000/- per month, relied upon the decision of this Court in Arfin Begum @ Afreen and others Vs. Parvatham and another, 2020 (6) ALD 619 (TS). On the same aspect, the learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of Zhampannappa Lamzane, (2018) 9 SCC 450. However, as earlier observed, the appellants have not produced any substantive proof with regard to the actual earnings of the deceased as on the date of the accident. Since how long the deceased was operating the auto as an auto driver and whether he owned any auto is also not stated. Production of driving license ipso facto does not mean that the occupation of the deceased is established. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to take the annual income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month i.e., Rs.78,000/- per annum. Also, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal failed in awarding future prospects. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) ACJ 2700 there is every requirement to award future prospects. As per the said decision, having regard to the age of the deceased as 25 years as on the date of accident and as he was self-employed, 40% of the established income should be added towards future prospects. Hence, the annual income of the deceased together with future prospects comes to Rs.1,09,200/- (Rs.78,000/- +Rs.31,200/-). The dependants are admittedly two in number. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corpora