Compensation for motor accident deaths must properly assess income and future prospects of deceased according to established legal precedents.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award, they are heard and decided together.

2. Both the appeals are preferred against the award dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 47 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 35,37,341 in favour of the claimants.

3. Facts of the case, in short, are that Govind Ram Deepak Sahu, aged about 56 years, who was working as a Senior Technician in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, died on 19.4.2013 in a motor accident occurred on 17.4.2013. Roshan alias Lalla was the driver and owner of the offending motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 05 - N 3419 and the offending motor cycle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants, i.e., wife, son and daughter of the deceased filed an application for compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . In his written statement, Roshan alias Lalla, the driver and owner of the offending motor cycle, pleaded that at the time of accident, he was having a valid and effective driving licence and the offending motor cycle was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, he is not responsible for any compensation. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending motor cycle, pleaded that as there was accident between two vehicles, therefore, the deceased himself was also responsible for the accident. The deceased had not possessed any valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments raised by learned counsel, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 35,37,341 in favour of the claimants.

4. The claimants have preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 413 of 2016 for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that while assessing compensation the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of future prospects of the deceased. While awarding the compensation the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only on the basis of his salary slips of some of the months. The Tribunal has not assessed the yearly income of the deceased as per his Form 16 for the relevant year.

5. The insurer of the offending motor cycle, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 245 of 2016 on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the accident was between the two vehicles. The motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 07 - LE 6784 was being driven by the deceased without any valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the deceased was also equally (50 per cent) negligent in causing the accident. Overlooking this aspect, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation on higher side, which is liable to be reduced. On other conventional heads also, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 56 years and, therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. , 2022 ACJ 956 (SC), 10 per cent of the established income of the deceased should be considered towards his future prospects. Learned counsel further relied on the judgments in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indiro Devi , 2018 ACJ 2051 (SC) and National In