Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh, District Alwar vs Amarjeet Singh and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has

1. Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh, resident of Village Peji Chowk, Gurudaspur, Punjab (Driver of Vehicle)

2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Dilbag, resident of Village and Post Jakhida, Police Station Bahadurgarh Sadar, District Jhajjhar, Hariyana (Owner of Vehicle)

3. The New Indian Assurance Company Limited, Chennai (Insurance Company) ...Respondents/Non claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 28/02/2025 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 11/03/2025

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Presiding [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (2 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016] Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh, District Alwar in claim case No. 331/2015 titled as Smt. Ruksina & ors. vs. Amarjeet Singh and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,59,400/- in favour of appellants- claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. Briefly stated deceased Sabbir along with Sharwan were going to Jhunjhunu from Bagad on a motor cycle near Bihad, one Trolla bearing No. HR-63A-4855 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the motor cycle to which deceased Sabbir sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. Notices of claim petition were served to respondents No. 1 and 2 but they have chosen not to appear and contest the claim petition, therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. Respondent No.3 has filed his written statement by controverting the facts narrated by the claimants in the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. In support of claim petition, the claimants have examined AW.1 Ruksina and AW.2 Sharwan Lal and produced Ex.1 to Ex.16 as documentary evidence. On the contrary, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has examined NAW-1 Brijesh Gupta and produced Ex.NA.1 to Ex. NA.2 as documentary evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (3 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]

5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,59,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization.

6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that the amount of compensation by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be adequate compensation. The deceased was the driver of heavy vehicle but in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has determined the income on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not granting future prospects as per the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under conventional heads also, the learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned award may be modified and be enhanced suitably.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has requested that the learned Tribunal has passed the award as per the settled position of law and considering all the material available on record. The claimants have not filed any proof of income, therefore, no interference is required to be made in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (4 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]

9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

10. The manner of accident and the insurance of the offending vehicle with respondent No.3 is uncontroverted, hence there is no scope for discussion on these points.

11. With regard to quantum of compensation, the age and multiplier as determined by the Tribunal is also undisputed.

12. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 7,34,400/- for loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and for loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- totaling Rs. 8,59,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

13. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible.

14. It is evident from the record that appellants-claimants have not produced any document about the income of the deceased [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (5 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016] Sabbir as heavy vehicle driver, therefore, the criteria of minimum wages adopted by the learned Tribunal is fully justified though the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as 4500/- which is not in consonance with the prevailing minimum wages. It transpires that on the date of accident i.e. 12.4.2014, the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer was 4914/- per month @ 189 per day, therefore, considering the month of 30 days, monthly income of the deceased would come at Rs. 5670/- per month adding to its 40% as future prospects (Rs.2268/-) in terms of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7938/- per month. Since the deceased died leaving seven dependents, therefore after deduction of 1/5 i.e. 1588/- per month from above assessed income, net income would come to Rs. 6350/- per month and loss of income comes to Rs. 6350x17x12=12,95,400/-.

15. In addition appellants-claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- with increase of its 10% in every three years under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and thereby appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.3,72,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.)

2. Loss of income 7,34,400/- 12,95,400/- loss of estate Nil 18,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (6 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]

6. Filial Consortium spousal Consortium 1,00,000/- parental consortium 96,000/- 48,000/- 1,92,000/- Funeral Expenses 25,000/ 18,000/- Total Compensation 8,59,400/- 16,67,400/-

16. The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 16,67,400/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.

17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

18. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. [2025:RJ-JP:10032] (7 of 7) [CMA-4807/2016]

19. The appeal is partly allowed. BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J