Court emphasized proper income assessment for compensation calculation, ensuring justice for dependents impacted by a fatal accident.

2. The factum of accident and liability of Insurance Company are not in dispute.

3 . The short facts giving rise to the case are that on 17/1/2016, deceased Bheriya @ Bheru went to Jaamkudi to attend the marriage ceremony. At around 9.00 PM when they were returning and reached near Jhiri Sadava Road, the respondent No.1 came driving tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 45 AA 3298 in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the tempo of deceased because of which Bheriya @ Bheru sustained several grievous injuries on his head, legs and other parts of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH body. He was brought to the primary health centre Kali Devi where he has died due to the injuries. The appellants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of the aforesaid person due to the accident. The claims tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record concluded that the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,26,000/-.

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of income of the deceased was not correct. He refers to para 15 of the impugned award and submits that the appellants have examined contractor Rajbir Kushwah (AW.3) and produced certificate Exhibit P/5 who certifies that deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.500/- per day. The learned claims tribunal has disbelieved the statement of the said witness and has also repelled the above said certificate by observing that the contractor has not brought his registration number. He has not brought any document to show that he is working as a contractor. No document regarding construction, contract, tender etc were produced by him. Thus the income of the deceased was taken on notional basis by treating him unskilled labourer at Rs.6000/- per month. He submits that from the findings of para 15 itself it can be seen that the claims tribunal has accepted that the deceased was working as a mason. Thus atleast he should have been treated as a semi skilled labourer and at the time of accident ie., 17/1/2016 minimum wages for semi skilled labourer were Rs.7472/-. He also submits that in terms of the schedule provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , multiplier of 15 should have been applied as the deceased was 45 years of age. He also submits that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH dependency of the deceased was taken at 1/4th whereas there were nine members dependants. He submits that the dependency has been taken for six dependants only for the reason that appellants / claimants No.6 to 8 were daughters who got married but he points out that the marriages were solemnized only after the death of the deceased. At the time of accident all were unmarried and were dependent on the deceased. Thus he submits that deduction under the head of personal expenses should have been made 1/6th of the income. He also submits that no future prospects have been awarded which is contrary to the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is hence submitted that the amount awarded to the appellants be enhanced appropriately.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company submits that the findings of the award are correct and proper. The contractor who came for proving the income of the deceased was only a witness brought by the claimants as he was not having any document so as to establish in the first place that he was a contractor. Thus his statement that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.500/- per day is doubtf