The court established that compensation for unskilled laborers in motor accident claims should be calculated based on the revised income guidelines provided by the State Legal Service Authority to ensure fair and realistic assessment of loss of dependency.

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 29.07.2016, passed by the 2nd Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Claim Case No.27/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that on 29.01.2015, at around 7:30 P.M. deceased met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. As a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on the way to Shajapur. Thereafter, dependent/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50,50,000/- along with interest.

3. Learned claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 which was insured with respondent No.3 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.2,15,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and also erred in deducting the amount for personal expenses. The multiplier applied is incorrect and the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads are on lower side. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is the wife and dependent of the deceased and prays for enhancement of the award amount.

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

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing the accident on the fateful day, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The only question for determination in this appeal is 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 70 years and as per the revised guidelines of the M.P. State Legal Service authority, the monthly income of unskilled labour was Rs.5895/- per month, whereas the learned tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month only. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased would be considered as Rs.5895/- instead of Rs.3000/- 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:

Loss of Income Rs.5895x12= Rs.70,740 - 1/3 (personal expenses) x 5

Dependency multiplier = Rs.2,35,800/-

Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-

Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-

Funer