Compensation in motor accident claims must be based on proven actual income when evidence is provided, and conventional heads like consortium and funeral expenses must be updated according to the latest Supreme Court guidelines.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 03.08.2016 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.11.2015.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that he does not challenge deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal. He, however, states that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹9,000/- per month inasmuch as the deceased was working as a Computer Teacher on temporary basis in DAV School, Narnaul and was drawing a salary of ₹13,500/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that though a lump sum amount of ₹4,89,600/- has been awarded towards future prospects, however, an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards future prospects as the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as ₹9,000/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, since no challenge has been laid by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants to the deduction and multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the same are maintained accordingly.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹9,000/- per month deserves to be accepted. In the present case, the claimant-appellants examined PW2 – Mahipal Singh, Assistant, DAV School, Narnaul, who deposed that the deceased was working as a Computer Teacher on temporary basis in their school and was drawing a salary of ₹13,500/- per month. This witness proved on record the attendance register and salary statements of the deceased as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. In the cross-examination by the Insurance Company, there is nothing elicited to disbelieve these documents