Tribunals may rely on unrebutted testimony for income and age in accident claims; compensation calculated using one-third deduction, age-based multiplier per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, without future prospects addition for self-employed over 50.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.05.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , wherein, the appellant insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondents to the tune of Rs.12,13,000/-, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher

side.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the

income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month without any cogent evidence to that effect. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the age of deceased as 42 years, however, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 56 years. Accordingly, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant Nos.1 to 7 contend that learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income and the age of the deceased-Narender Singh @ Pappu. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

5. Since in the present appeal the challenge is made only on the issue of computation of compensation, therefore, it would be apposite to reproduce findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.2:-

“11. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the claimants has drawn my attention to the testimony of AW1 Nirmal Kaur widow of Narinder Singh Pappu deceased who tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and has deposed that her husband Narinder Singh @ Pappu died in a road side accident on 21.10.08 at the age of 42 yrs. He left behind claimants No. 1 to 7 as his legal heirs. She further deposed that her husband had purchased Tata 407 N. PB-10-H- 9411 in Feb. 2008 for Rs. 2 lacs and since then he was plying the same and was earning Rs. 10,000/-Ber month. She further deposed that all the claimants were dependents upon the income of her husband NO evidence to rebut the abovesaid version of income being Rs. 10,000/- has come up From the above evidence, this court is of the opinion that the deceased must have been earning Rs. 10,000/- by plying the Tata 407 so the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 10.000/-. Out of the said amount after deducting 1/3rd for his personal use, the amount which he was contributing for the claimants comes to be Rs,6700/- which on multiplying by 12 months comes to Rs. 80400/- per annum. Nirmal Kaur claimant has stated that her husband was of the age of 42 yrs at the time of his death. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 42 yrs this court is of the opinion that multiplier of 15 is just and proper. Therefore, the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 15 comes to Rs. 80400/-x 15 = Rs.12,06,000/-. The claimants are further granted Rs.2000/- as funeral charges and Rs. 5000/- as consortium to the widow/claimant No.1 and in all the amount of compensation comes to Rs.12,13,000/- to which the claimants are entitled. The respondent No.1 being driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending truck are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Both issues No.1 and 2 are accordingly decided favour of the claimants and against the respondents.”

SETTLED LA