The court reaffirmed the principle of compensation in motor vehicle accidents, emphasizing the assessment of future earnings and liability based on preponderance of probabilities.

1. These two appeals are arising out of same impugned award passed on 15.4.2013 in Claim Case No. 139 of 2012 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short 'Claims Tribunal').

2. MAC No. 757 of 2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and MAC No. 692 of 2013 is filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 / NA 2, 3 and 4, owner of offending vehicle, stating that the award is bad in law.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that on 28.7.2010 when Muralidhar Sahu (since deceased) was travelling on his Activa and going to Namnakala from Gandhi Chowk, he met with an accident with a tanker bearing No. UP 32 - AN 4043 (for short 'offending vehicle'), driven by NA 1.

4. In the aforementioned accident, Muralidhar Sahu suffered grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries. Claimants, who are parents and siblings of deceased, filed claim application seeking total compensation of Rs. 45,00,000, mentioning therein that the deceased Muralidhar Sahu was a government servant, working as Constable with Reserve Police and posted at Kanker. He was earning Rs. 12,000 per month but after his death, claimants are deprived of earnings of deceased Muralidhar Sahu.

5. NA1 / driver of offending vehicle submitted reply to claim application mentioning therein that he was driving offending vehicle very slowly and carefully. At the time of accident, deceased tried to overtake the offending vehicle from behind and dashed with road divider and met with an accident. In his pleadings, NA 1 specifically denied the fact of accident from his vehicle.

6. NA 2 to 4 / owner of offending vehicle also submitted separate reply to the claim application and taken the same defence as of NA 1, driver of offending vehicle.

7. NA 5 / State Government pleaded that deceased died in a motor accident on 28.7.2010 at about 7.30 p.m.

8. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, arrived at a finding that NA 1 / driver, while driving offending vehicle, dashed the Activa of deceased and caused accident. Further it recorded a finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of driver of Activa, i.e., deceased and held that Muralidhar Sahu died due to motor accident injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by NA 1 and awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,34,672.

9. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously deducted 50 per cent of income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses, without considering number of claimants in the case; not awarded any amount towards future prospects even though deceased was a permanent government employee, who was aged about 32 years only on the date of accident; and in awarding very less amount of compensation on other conventional heads. He further submits that deceased was having a bright future and looking to his long service period, there was every possibility of getting promotion in future, which learned Claims Tribunal has not considered and, therefore, he prays for enhancement of amount of compensation suitably.

10. Per contra, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India, submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the pleadings and evidence in its entirety and arrived at an erroneous finding that the vehicle owne