- (1.) THE appeal is to question the validity and legality of the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 28 of 1995 awarding sum of Rs 6,10,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
(2.) RAJENDRA , deceased was a Commission Agent for the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit Trust, Housing and financial Consultant as also was an agriculturist. On 07-08-1994, he was proceeding by a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-31/ L-2293 coming from Shankar Nagar square, Nagpur and was dashed by Maruti Car bearing registration No. MH-31/4834 owned by Govardhandas Ramchandra Kela, resident of Nagpur and insured with appellant/Insurer. The Tribunal had considered the income of the victim from 01-04-1991 till 19931994 in the sum of Rs.68,293, Rs.74,429, Rs.83,367 on the basis of Income Tax returns of the victim (Exh Nos.42 to 44). Considering the age of the victim and prospective increase in the income, it was taken as Rs 90,000/- p.a. one-third amount towards personal expenses Rs. 30.000/=Rs.60,000/- p. a. x 10 as multiplier = Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was added as compensation towards mental agony and pain. Thus, a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- was awarded as compensation inclusive of the sum awarded as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant has challenged the award by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased as a driver of the motorcycle was proportionately more negligent and compensation ought to have been restricted in proportion to the contributory negligence of the Maruti car driver. It is contended that the deceased as a driver of the motorcycle was liable for the contributory negligence for at least 25% for the motor vehicle accident and therefore, the liability of the appellant could have been proportionately reduced accordingly. According to learned Advocate, the motorcycle driver suddenly came in front of the car and the accident had occurred. Furthermore it is submitted that the agricultural income would continue to accrue even after demise of the victim. Multiplier was also chosen on higher side at 10 instead of at 6 considering the ages of the claimants. Learned Advocate has prayed to allow the appeal by reducing the compensation.
(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the respondent, however, denied that the victim was negligent while driving his motor cycle. It is contended that the pecuniary losses on account of loss of prospective income shall also be considered at 30% above the proved income of the victim and further the adequate damages were not awarded under the conventional heads, mental agony and pains for untimely death of son for irreparable loss of earning family member of the claimant 's family. Learned Advocate for the respondent has filed cross objection on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred to hold annual income of the deceased at Rs. 90,000/- only and interest was granted only @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition as also while fixing the multiplier at 10, less compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- only was granted. Thus, the learned Advocate for the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 28,12,224/- with interest @ 12% p.a. as appropriate compensation according to him.;