The court modified the compensation assessment by considering future income prospects and family dependency as outlined under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of the award under appeal dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 11 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,22,200 with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the court below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.8.2016 at 3.15 p.m., deceased Sumendra alias Ramesh Singh Maravi was going along with his friend namely Dujram Dhruv from Litiya to village Changori and at the relevant time, they were dashed vehemently from their back side by the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. CG 10 - A 5978 owned by non - applicant No. 2 - Bhajan Singh and insured with non - applicant No. 3 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. owing to rash and negligent driving by its driver, non - applicant No. 1 - Bhavani Singh. As a result of the alleged accident, deceased Sumendra died on the spot while his friend got injured badly, which led to the registration of a criminal case against the driver of truck at P.S. Kota in connection with Crime No. 183 of 2016 under S.279, S.337 and S.304 - A of IPC .

3. Claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, instituted a petition under S.166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting, inter alia, that the deceased, a 35 - year - old, mason (rajmistri) by profession and was involved in agricultural business as well and used to earn Rs. 4,00,000 and thus, a total amount of compensation of Rs. 52,25,000 has been claimed under various heads.

4. The non - applicants have contested the claim and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has arrived at a conclusion that deceased Sumendra died on the spot owing to rash and negligent driving of truck driver and that by considering his income to the tune of Rs. 3,800, the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of compensation as mentioned hereinabove.

5. Mr. Dewangan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in assessing the income of the deceased only to the tune of Rs. 3,800 per month and thereby erred in awarding a meagre amount of compensation payable to the claimants even without considering the future prospects of his income. It is contended further that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the proper amount of compensation towards conventional heads as well. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), respectively.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents / non - applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the award impugned as passed by the Claims Tribunal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the amount of compen­sation as determined by the Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,800 even without considering the future prospects of his income is unjustified and deserves to be modified.

9. According to the claimants, the deceased was a mason (rajmistri) and was also involved in agricultural work and used to earn more than Rs. 4,00,000 annually. However, in abs