ORDER

Heard learned counsels for the parties on admission.

2. The necessary facts for deciding this appeal in brief is that on 29.05.2019 the offending vehicle dashed the car of the deceased Dr. Sanjay Vishwakarma, when he was going to Jabera, District Damoh from Jabalpur. The deceased sustained several injuries and due to grievous injuries, he succumbed to death. On filing the claim petition before learned Tribunal by the claimants/appellants and after conducting enquiry therein, learned Tribunal by impugned award has passed an award of Rs.39,13,274/- in favour of the claimants/appellants.

3. This miscellaneous appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant/claimant to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred on 29.05.2019, whereas income tax return of the deceased of the year 2018-19 was taken into consideration while assessing the compensation.

However, the return of the assessment year 2019-20 was to be taken into consideration for the assessment of the compensation. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was in permanent job and practicing as a medical practitioner in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Jabalpur, therefore, future prospects ought to be 30% instead of 25%. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant no.4/father was dependent on the deceased but the Tribunal has not taken this fact into account and held appellant nos.1 to 3 as dependents. On these grounds the award ought to be enhanced.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that Smt. Sushma Vishwakarma, widow of the deceased Dr. Sanjay Vishwakarma in her chief examination in para 4 categorically stated that her husband having annual income of Rs.3,15,560/- from the profession of medical practice. This fact is not rebutted. As per dictum in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the father could not be treated as dependent on the deceased and learned Tribunal has not erred in finding father as non dependent on the deceased. Moreover, since it is not proved that the deceased was not in permanent job, therefore, 25% of future prospects is rightly calculated by the learned Tribunal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned award, it is found that Smt. Sushma Vishwakarma, who was widow of deceased himself in para 4 of her affidavit of chief examination categorically stated that her husband Dr. Sanjay Vishwakarma was practicing in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Jabalpur and was having 1/3 partnership in that hospital and he had the income of Rs.3,15,560/-. It is nowhere stated by this witness that from other sources her husband has enhanced income. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that being a widow lady such a statement cannot be treated as final, if the return of income tax is on record.

7. Since the important witnesses and widow of the deceased admitted in her statement and even in chief examination and remained intact in cross examination, such admission cannot be overlooked by this Court and keeping and in view such admission, the income of the deceased was rightly taken as Rs.3,15,560/- per year. So far such other grounds are concerned, as per dictum in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that father cannot be treated as a dependent on the deceased. Here in this case also, there is no specific evidence available on record with regard to appellant no.4/father of deceased that he was dependent on the deceased. Therefore, as per the dictim in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the learned Tribunal has rightly found that the appellant no.4 was not dependent on the deceased.

8. So far as the future prospects is concerned, the evidence on behalf of the claimants/appellants is that the deceased was a practicing doctor, but it is no whe