AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J.—This appeal is for enhancement of compensation awarded by District Judge cum - M.A.C.T., Godda in M.A.C.T. No. 54 of 2008.
It appears that an application filed by Claimants u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and after considering the evidences and other materials available on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation amount as per ScheduleII of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is submitted by Sri Manoj Kumar Sah, learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned court below had taken into account that the notional income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/per annum and he has also applied a multiplier of 15 as per ScheduleII, but he deducted 1/3rd amount of aforesaid notional income towards maintenance of deceased, which is illegal.
In my view the aforesaid submission of Sri Manoj Kumar Sah is misconceived and gainst the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the foot note of Second chedule, it is clearly mentioned that
The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive.
Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the aforesaid provision mentioned in the Schedule.
In the said circumstance, I find no illegality in the said order. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.