HEMLATA NAYAK Vs. GULAB RABBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), the appellants/claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded under the award dated 20-12-2004 by 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 33/2002. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/- to the appellants/claimants. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition against the respondents/non-claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 41,40,000/- for the death of Bhajan Nayak in a motor accident, which took place on 14-11-2000. Appellant No. 1 Smt. Hemlata Nayak is widow, appellant No. 2 Smt. Rekha Nayak is mother, appellants No. 3 and 4 Bhayank Nayak and Dushyant Nayak, respectively are sons and appellant No. 5 Monika Nayak is daughter of deceased Bhajan Nayak. At the time of accident, the deceased was employed in Veterinary Department and was aged about 36 years. On the date of accident, i.e., 14-11-2000, at about 9 a.m., the deceased was going to his office situated at Village Junagaon on his scooter bearing registration No. M.P. 25 AA 1963. On the way, the scooter stopped, therefore, he took the scooter at the side of the road and tried to re-start it. At that lime, a Hero Puch bearing Chasis Number CB-79222, coming from the opposite direction, being driven by respondent No. 1 Gulab Rabbani rashly and negligently dashed the scooter of the deceased. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries. He was admitted in R.N.T. Hospital, Kondagaon, where he died during treatment. Crime No. 343/2000 was registered in Police Station Kondagaon vide First Information Report (Ex. P-1).

(2.) The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants holding respondents No. 1 and 2 liable for payment thereof.

(3.) Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that the Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted the amount of pension from the income of the deceased. He further argued that the amount of pension cannot be deducted from the income of the deceased. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably.