Motor accident compensation requires structured assessment including future prospects, age-based multipliers, dependency deductions, and conventional heads like consortium per Pranay Sethi guidelines, applicable to deaths, minors, and injuries.

1. The present bunch of FAOs has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , laying challenge to common award dated 21.01.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby compensation has been granted in consequence of the same motor vehicular accident. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration and the accident is same, all these appeals are being decided together by this common order.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The facts emerging from the record indicate that all the present appeals arise out of a singular motor vehicular accident which occurred on 09.09.1996 during night hours involving Trax Jeep bearing no. DL-1CD-6231 driven by one Samitter Singh and Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No. HR-37-37-1166 driven by the respondent no. 3 namely Bal Krishan. The bus, was being driven in very rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.3 brought bus

on wrong side of the road and struck in Trax Jeep driven by Samitter Singh on very slow speed, resulting in death of 10 persons including 2 Minors and injuries to three persons including two minors, many of whom belonged to the same extended family who were the travelling in the Trax Jeep. The FIR no. 61 dated 10.09.1996 promptly registered after the incident specifically attributes the occurrence to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. The eye-witnesses, including Amrik Singh, Manjit Singh and Ajit Singh, who were examined during the proceedings, deposed in a consistent manner that the bus was being driven in a rash, negligent and uncontrolled manner and, without taking due care, dashed against the victims' vehicle. The immediate aftermath reflects that while some victims died at the spot or on being shifted to the medical facility, others sustained grievous injuries necessitating prolonged treatment, hospitalisation and surgical intervention.

3. Consequent upon the accident, numerous claim petitions came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, seeking compensation under various heads such as loss of dependency, consortium, medical expenditure, funeral charges, special diet, attendant charges and loss of income. The learned Tribunal clubbed the petitions, noticing that all claims pertained to the same accident, and proceeded to record common evidence on issues of negligence and liability, while separate evidence was considered regarding age, income, treatment and quantum of compensation in each individual petition. During the proceedings, oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. The claimants produced the FIR, post-mortem reports, medical documents, discharge summaries and, in some cases, proof of occupation. The respondents filed written statements

disputing the manner of accident and, at places, suggested contributory negligence or involvement of some unidentified vehicle. The learned Tribunal framed issues concerning negligence of the driver of the offending bus, entitlement of the claimants and quantum of compensation, and proceeded to return findings after appreciating evidence in each file.

4. Upon consideration, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration no. HR-37-1166 and a