Smt Chakki @APPELLANT@Hash Mansukh Bhai J Bariya

Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), questioning the amount of

compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’), by its judgment & award

dated 02.08.2016. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment & award, while adjudicating claim of the appellants under Section 140 read with

Section 166 of the Act, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/-under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum.

The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that as a consequence of collision of Lalu Ram’s motorcycle with dumper bearing No. RJ-30-GA-

3887 he succumbed to the injuries. As per version of the appellants, at the time of accident, deceased Lalu Ram was 49 years of age and involved in

business of transport. It is specifically pleaded in the claim petition that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle

dumper. The claim petition was not contested by owner and driver of the insured vehicle and it is only the respondent-Insurer, who has joined the issue

to contest the claim. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination and the parties led their evidence.

On behalf of appellants, two witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited, however, no evidence was tendered by the Insurance

Company.

Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other materials available on record proceeded to decide Issue Nos.1 & 2 simultaneously and

both these issues were decided in favour of the appellants. The third issue, which was settled on the basis of objections raised on behalf of Insurer,

was decided against Insurer precisely by citing the reason that no evidence is tendered on behalf of it to prove that terms of the insurance policy are

violated by the insured.

While switching on to Issue No.4 regarding quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence threadbare and in absence of any

cogent proof about age of the deceased, upon considering the evidence of widow, found that at the time of death Lalu Ram (deceased) was

approximately 60 years of age. With this finding, learned Tribunal has declined to award any compensation for future prospects. Learned Tribunal,

upon consideration of the evidence, recorded its definite finding that at the time of death, deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and after

making ¼th deduction, worked out annual income as Rs.90,000/- and by applying multiplier of 8 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/-

for loss of dependency. Besides that, for loss of love and affection as well as consortium, learned Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant-claimants. That apart, funeral expenses and other expenses, including transportation, were also awarded and finally the

learned Tribunal quantified compensation to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/-.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment

& award. After perusal of the impugned judgment & award, more particularly finding on Issue No.4, in my view, learned Tribunal has discussed the

entire evidence available on record meticulously. Moreover, learned Tribunal, while quantifying the compensation, has also taken note of the

authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and Neeta &

Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur : 2015 ACJ 598.

In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, per annum income of the deceased, assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and

reasonable. For making assessment of the income of deceased, learned Tribunal has rightly considered a vital fact that he was not paying income-tax

and no proof in this behalf is furnished by the appellants. That apart, assessment of age of the deceased too is founded on cogent reasons in the

backdrop of evidence and other available material.

In view thereof, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, satisfying the requirements of

Section 168 of the Act, and consequently, no interference to that extent in the impugned judgment & award is warranted. Resultantly, I find no merit

in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.