In motor accident claims, assessment of income should incorporate a percentage for managerial skills regarding agricultural management, and the term 'legal representative' must be interpreted liberally to include all financial dependents regardless of their independent asset ownership.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.

1. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 21.04.2004 passed in MACT case No.3 of 04.01.2001 decided by the MACT, Moga (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.2,47,500/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization on account of death of Narinder Singh Gill in a motor vehicle accident.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

“ 1. Whether Narinder Singh died on 21.2.2000 in motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.JKN-6656 by Darshan Singh respondent No.1-driver? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased? OPP

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR (1-2)

5. Whether the driver of the offending jeep was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident?OPR-3

6. Relief”.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,47,500/- as compensation to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award.

7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending jeep bearing No.JKN-6656, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned award, vide which compensation has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel further contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. Future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased, contrary to the settled provisions of law. Appropriate compensation has not been awarded under the conventional heads, i.e. loss of consortium and funeral expenses and he prayed that compensation be suitably