The court emphasized the importance of calculating compensation based on gross salary, considering future prospects and directed insurance companies to deposit compensation first despite policy breaches.

1. Appellants - claimants have preferred this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') feeling partially aggrieved by the award dated 5.10.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 39 of 2013 thereby allowing application for grant of compensation in part and awarding Rs. 15,30,464 as total compensation in a fatal accident case.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.4.2009 when Vijay Kumar Dave was travelling on motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 17 - K 4083, one truck bearing registration No. CG 17 - H 0203 (for short 'the offending truck') dashed his motor cycle and thereafter the offending truck turned turtle. In the said accident, Vijay Kumar Dave suffered grievous injuries, he was taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where he succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment.

3. Appellants - claimants filed an application under S.166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 37,41,000 pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was 41 years of age, he was working as Patwari (government servant) and getting salary of Rs. 12,900 per month. Claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased.

4. Non - applicant No. 1, driver offending truck, submitted his reply to claim application and denied the entire pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non - applicant No. 1 - driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and the offending truck was insured with non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company.

5. Non - applicant No. 2 - owner of offending truck, submitted his reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made in claim application it was pleaded that non - applicant No. 1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence; the offending truck was insured with non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company and as such, liability if any for payment of amount of compensation would be upon non - applicant No. 3.

6. Non - applicant No. 3 - insurance company also filed its reply to claim application denying the entire pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that as there was head - on collision between two vehicles, there was contributory negligence, therefore, the amount of compensation be calculated accordingly. Driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident were not having valid and effective driving licence. Offending truck was not having valid fitness certificate, permit and registration; it was carrying passengers more than its seating capacity and it was plied in breach of policy conditions. Premium was paid for covering risk of driver, conductor and cleaner only. In these circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

7. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties held that the deceased died on account of accidental injuries suffered by him in a road accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by its driver, i.e., non - applicant No. 1; there was breach of policy condition; accordingly awarded Rs. 15,30,464 as total compensation and while exonerating insurance company from its liability held non - applicant No. 1 and 2, driver and owner of offending truck, liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

8. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income of deceased as Rs. 11,797 only. The deceased was a government servant working as Patwari and getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,900. Income