The absence of a vehicle's fitness certificate does not automatically exonerate an insurance company from its liability to pay compensation unless the fitness certificate is a specific condition stipulated within the insurance policy.

ORDER

1. The present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 21.02.2017, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No.14/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 23.01.2015, at around 11:10 AM deceased Banesingh aged 52 years who is a labour, met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. As a result of which, deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Thereafter, dependent/claimant of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claim seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest.

3. Learned claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 which was insured with respondent No.1 on the fateful day. Thus, learned MACT after appreciating the evidence on record partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.5,77,000/- as against the claim of of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- which is on a lower side. It is submitted that learned tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance company in absence of fitness of the offending vehicle and thus the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal by this Court.

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was responsible for causing the accident and on the fateful day, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal requires modification or not?

7. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Upon perusal of the record and after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal has assessed lower side income of the deceased. The deceased at the time of accident was 60 years and as per the revised guidelines of the M.P. State Legal Service authority, the monthly income of unskilled labour would be Rs.5895/- per month at the relevant point of time, whereas the learned tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month only. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased would be Rs.5895/- instead of Rs.4000/- per month. After applying the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 4 ACJ 270 Sarla & Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the claimant is entitled to get the compensation as under:

Income taken Rs.5895x12= Rs.70,740 - Rs.23,580/- (1/3 i.e. personal expenses) = Rs.47,160/- x 11 (multiplier as per the age) =Rs.5,18,760/- + 10% future prospect (Rs.5,18,760 + Rs.51,876) total Rs.5,70,636/-

Loss of Dependency Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 3)

Loss of Consortium Rs.16,500/-

Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-

Total Rs.7,35,636/