Judgment:
G.F. Couto, J.
1. This appeal by the driver and the proprietor of the truck involved in the accident is directed against the award dated 30th April, 1986 made by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao.
2. On 23rd May, 1983, a traffic accident took place on the Margao-Verna road and a boy, aged about 22 years, came to die as a result thereof. He was riding cycle from Margao towards Verna and, when he reached Belloy of Nuvem the truck bearing the registration number MRS-9655, driven by the appellant Abdul Hamid Shaikh Hassan knocked him down.
3. An application for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
4. This application was resisted by the appellants herein on the ground that the accident occurred partly due to the negligence of the deceased who, at the relevant time of the accident, was riding the cycle by one hand and was having a packet of grams in the other hand.
5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to the exclusive fault of the appellant Abdul Hamid Shaikh Hassan who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. He awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,500/- which was to be paid, jointly and severally, by the appellants and the respondent No. 3 herein. The liability of the third respondent was restricted, in terms of the Insurance Policy, to Rs. 50,000/-. He also ordered that interest at the rate of 6% per annum be paid in the awarded compensation.
6. Aggrieved by this Award, the owner and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident had approached this Court with the present appeal. Notice of the hearing was duly served on the parties but, at the hearing, only the learned Counsel for the a appellants and the Insurance Company put up an appearance.
7. Mr. Kolwalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, in all fairness, did not press before us that the accident was due to the negligence of deceased or even that three was contributory negligence on his part. He restricted his challenge to the amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He urged that the said compensation is patently excessive. The deceased was a young man who, at the relevant time of the accident, had merely passed his B.Com. and was not yet earning anything. No evidence has been brought on record as to establish that he was a bright student and that he had good prospects of becoming a Chartered Accountant as the claimants were expecting. Also, no evidence has been brought as to establish what would have been his prospectus in life. According to the learned Counsel, in the circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- awarded on the head of loss of prospects of life is highly excessive. He further contended that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded on the head of loss of company is also on the higher side and requires to be reduced. Mr. Kolwalkar did not, however, challenge the compensation of Rs. 2,500/- granted on the head of funeral expenses and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- on the head of shock and last agony of life.
8. On going through the records of the case, we find that the learned Counsel is quite right and justified in the above submissions. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bright student and that he would be successful in being a Chartered Accountant. No evidence also has been brought to establish what have been his prospects in life. Therefore, in our view, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, awarded on the head of future bright prospects in life, is highly excessive and, in all fairness, the same should be reduced to an amount of Rs. 45,000/- only. Equally we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on the head of loss of company is highly excessive and that a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, bearing in mind the above observations we think that a fair and just compensation will come to Rs. 60,000/- in all, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the application for compensation till the actual payment.
9. Mr. Afonso, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, has stated across the Bar that the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted in the terms of the Insurance Policy, to Rs. 50,000/- only. He stated that the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- and costs in the petition had already been paid by the third respondent with interest thereon. Mr. Kolwalkar accepted this statement of Mr. Afonso. Therefore, the balance of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is to be paid exclusively by the appellants herein.
10. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the application till the actual payment. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon already paid by the Insurance Company to be duly adjusted in the payment of the compensation to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. No order is made as to costs.