JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) assailing award dated 17.01.2015 by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Central District, Delhi in Suit No. 188/2010 titled as “Smt. Reena & Ors. v. Shri Sandeep & Ors.” The Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 26,11,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim. The wife of the deceased, Reena was held entitled to 50%, and the parents were held entitled to 25% each of the awarded amount.

Factual Background

2. Respondent No. 1 is widow of Late Rajiv Singh while respondent no. 2 and 3 are mother and father of deceased Rajiv Singh, respectively. The deceased succumbed to injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

3. On 02.12.2009, at about 9:30 P.M. the deceased, Rajiv Singh, was travelling along with one Sandeep, the driver of the vehicle, which was loaded with vegetables, bearing registration No. DL 1 LG 8898 (Tata 407). Their vehicle met with an accident near Maan Dhaba, Murthal, District Sonepat, Haryana and Rajiv Singh was rushed to the local government hospital. From there he was moved to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital Delhi, where he succumbed to his injuries on 03.12.2009. The accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of Sandeep.

4. The MACT framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the deceased Sh. Rajeev Singh had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 02.12.2009 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1 LG 8898 by respondent No. 1?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) Relief.”

5. The MACT found that as per the testimonies of PW-1 and the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) as well as the record, that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. As regards the compensation for the LRs of the deceased, the MACT calculated it on the basis of the following factors:

Submissions by Counsel for the Appellant:

6. Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, based his contentions in support of the appeal on the following grounds:

a. Firstly, that there is no material evidence on record to prove any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, respondent no.1 failed to examine any eyewitness to prove any negligence on part of respondent no.4. There is only DD entry No.22 dated 03.12.2009 Ex. PW-6/A which does not indicate any negligence on part of respondent no.4. According to appellant’s counsel, MACT erred in appreciating testimonies of PW- 1, PW-5 and PW-6 and attested copies of criminal record produced, in reaching the conclusion that the deceased suffered fatal injuries due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As per him, negligence is required to be proved as per section 166 of the Act. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Negi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3044. b. Secondly, it is contended that monthly income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed at Rs.11,000/- per month despite there being no salary certificate or salary receipt on record. Reliance has also been placed on the bank statement which shows variation in amounts paid by the employer of the deceased. Therefore, minimum wages ought to have been applied instead of Rs.11,000/-.

c. Thirdly, MACT erred in allowing 50% future prospects to income of the deceased which ought not to have been more than 40%. This was contrary to the ratio as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pr