The court held that delay in FIR is excusable if the victim was hospitalized, and compensation in motor accident claims must be calculated based on current minimum wages and include future prospects and consortium as per established Supreme Court precedents.

Judgment

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 300/2015, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants (respondents in CMA No. 6043/2016) was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2015, when Mohan Lal (since deceased) was going to Nehru Park near Sabilshah Chowki on his Activa scooter, a bus bearing registration No. RJ26-PA-0443, belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘appellant-Corporation’), and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter. As a result of which, Mohan Lal sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

2.1 Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, which was partly allowed, and a compensation of Rs. 8,14,170/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, was awarded in their favour.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, Appeal No.5960/2016 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas Appeal No.6043/2016 has been preferred by the appellant- Corporation assailing the validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the FIR was lodged on 02.03.2015, i.e., with a delay of eight days from the date of accident, which creates doubt regarding the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he was speaking on his mobile phone while riding the scooter and was not wearing a helmet, which amounted to a violation of traffic rules and thus was responsible for contributory negligence. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Corporation and supports the impugned award, particularly with regard to the finding of negligence on the part of the bus driver.

5.1 With regard to the appeal filed by the claimants, learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs.4916/-, whereas, at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker were Rs. 197/- per day.

5.2 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to make any addition towards future prospects in the income of the deceased.

5.3 Learned counsel also submits that compensation under the conventional heads, namely loss of estate and loss of consortium, is required to be awarded in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award.

7. This Court finds that Durgesh Kumar (AW-2), an eye-witness, stated before the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the vehicle of the deceased. He further stated that he, along with other persons, took the deceased to the hospital. The said witness further stated that, considering the serious condition of the deceased, he was referred to Jaipur, where he remained under treatment for 7-8 days.

7.1 Similarly, another eye-witness, Rajesh Kumar (AW-3) also stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness also stated that the deceased was wearing a helm