DEVKI DEVI Vs. ANIL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in the present appeal seeks enhancement in the award over and above the amount as already awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 for loss of financial dependence besides a sum of Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium/non-pecuniary damages with a further sum of Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 has been awarded in favour of the appellant. The case involves a young boy of 18 years who as per the appellant was working as a labourer in some canteen. In the absence of any evidence led by the appellant to prove his income and due to nature of the employment, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000 into consideration as laid down in the Second Schedule to the motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards personal expenses and after taking note of the age of the dependants, multiplier of 11 has been applied and the Tribunal has arrived at the said figure of Rs. 1,10,000. Appellant in the present appeal is aggrieved that inflation and the increase in price index was not taken into consideration by the tribunal. Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the accident occurred on 6/9/2001 and Second Schedule was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act by amending the Act of 1988 in the year 1994 w. e. f. 14/11/1994. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in M. A. C. Appeal No. 297 of 2005 in which inflation and increase in cost of living index was taken into consideration.

(2.) PER contra, counsel for the respondents contends that there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the tribunal and the appellant did not lead evidence to disclose the nature of his employment. Counsel also contends that correct multiplier of 11 after taking into consideration the age of the dependants has been applied by the Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.