KANAK LATA Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the widow of deceased and minor daughter filed the present appeal against the respondents.

(2.) Respondent No.1 was the driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.3 is Insurance Company. Inspite of various opportunities, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has contented that the Tribunal did not lake into consideration that the deceased was 35 years old at the tune of his death. He was serving in Indian Air Force and was getting Rs.1250.00 p.m. and after his successful service in the Indian Force, he was working as a Liaison Officer of Kingston Electronics and he was getting Rs.1,400.00 p.m.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed on reliance on PW8/1 and has contended that the Tribunal has tost sigh of the fact that after six months of the appointment of the deceased with Kingston Electronics, it was stated in Public Witness 8/1 which was the letter of appointment that the salary of the deceased would be increased after six months. What has been contended before me that the future promotions and other emoluments which would have been received by the deceased has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It has also been contended that 1/3rd allowance has been deducted from the total income of the deceased. According to counsel for the appellant this is on the higher side and the appellant would not have spent that much of amount on himself.