Compensation for motor vehicle accident adjusted for income calculation and contributory negligence principles.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the award dated 22.04.2015 passed by MACT, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in M.A.C.P No.18 of 2013 titled Madhu Joshi and another vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others, whereby the claim petition preferred by them has been allowed, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3,42,750/- in their favour as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the payment. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded to them.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellants who are the unfortunate parents of deceased Prabhat Joshi had preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for untimely death of their son. The deceased had died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 16.04.2013 at Rakkar Colony near Cheverlot Showroom in District Una, H.P. involving Tipper Truck No.HR-64- 6574.

3. The appellants have challenged the award on the grounds that the income of the deceased has wrongly been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas it should have been taken on a higher side in view of the principles enunciated in Kishan Gopal & another. vs. Lala & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 244. Further, the Tribunal below has erred while deducting 25% on account of contributory negligence holding that the deceased at the time of accident was not holding a driving license. The Tribunal has also erred while awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount which is on the lower side, however, the same should have been awarded @ 9% per annum.

4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants with the able assistance of Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, vehemently argued that the award under challenge deserves to be modified, thereby substantially enhancing the amount on account of untimely death of the deceased, who was son of the appellants and further the interest may be enhanced to 9% per annum on the compensation amount.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, representing respondent No.3 has supported the award passed by the Tribunal below and contended that since there is no documentary evidence with respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal below has correctly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, since he was unemployed. So far as the award of interest is concerned, it has been argued that the Tribunal below in its discretion has rightly awarded the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount which is now generally being awarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncements.

6. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 and submitted that since the award passed by the Tribunal is just, the same does not require any interference.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.

8. As far as the first contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal below has erred while taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, is concerned, the same deserves to be accepted for the reason that since the deceased was a student of 10+1, he had a bright future. The learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the evidence led by the appellants, especially affidavit of appellant No.1, who appeared before the Tribunal below as PW-3 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Exhibit PW3/A, wherein, it has been stated by her that the deceased was a brilliant student and further was having interest in the field of sports and cultural activities. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that the deceased was aiming to become an IAS Officer. If the cross exa