RENU MALHOTRA Vs. SHISHPAL SINGH SHINGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the appellants in the present appeal is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the correct income of the deceased including his future prospects. Appellants are also aggrieved that wrong age of the deceased has been taken into consideration, which as per the immigration papers exhibited as Exh. PW2/z and proved on record was 32 years on the relevant date of accident but the Tribunal giving undue weightage to the post-mortem report has determined the age of the deceased at 35 years. The brief summary of the facts for deciding the present appeal are as under: on 5. 5. 1995, Harvinder Kumar malhotra, the deceased was travelling in taxi bearing registration No. MH 15-B 1684 from Shirdi to Manmad and met with an accident with a truck bearing registration no. DIG 788 at Yeola, Manmad. He received fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries received in the accident and died on the spot.

(2.) MR. Pramod Ahuja, counsel appearing for appellants contends that the brother of the deceased is settled in Canada and after resigning from his previous job, the deceased was about to join his brother in canada where certainly he would have been employed at a better place and would have earned a better income than the previous one. Counsel thus contends that the tribunal ought to have taken into account the future prospects of the deceased. The counsel for the appellants further contends that in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased has been shown as 35 years, while in immigration papers, the age of the deceased is clearly shown as 32 years. The counsel thus contends that the multiplier of 17 should have been applied after taking into account the age of the deceased at 32 years.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. P. K. Mishra, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 refutes the contentions of counsel for the appellants and contends that even in the absence of any material, the Tribunal has taken into account the future prospects of the deceased. Counsel thus contends that no interference of this court is required as far as the determination of income and age of the deceased is concerned. On the age of the deceased, the contention of counsel for the respondent is that the multiplier is same between the age of the deceased from 32 to 35 years as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, also the award is not to be interfered by the appellate court. Counsel further contends that the Tribunal has given sufficient reasons in the award for taking into account the multiplier of 14.