GURU PAL Vs. TEJ PAL SINGH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 15/9/1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,640/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) Sh. Y.R. Sharma, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,495/- per month whereas after looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses when the deceased was a bachelor and was the sole breadwinner in the family and was supporting his parents. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 10 while computing compensation when according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 15 should have been applied. It was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased would have earned much more in near future as he was of 20 yrs of age only and would have lived for another 30-40 yrs had he not met with the accident. It was also alleged by the counsel that the tribunal did not consider the fact that due to high rates of inflation the deceased would have earned much more in near future and the tribunal also failed in appreciating the fact that even the minimum wages are revised twice in an year and hence, the deceased would have earned much more in his life span. The counsel also raised the contention that the rate of interest allowed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the tribunal should have allowed simple interest @ 15% per annum in place of only 9% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants and awarded a meagre sum towards funeral expenses. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhry, counsel for the respondent insurance company refuted the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the tribunal passed the award after due deliberation and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He urged that the award is just and fair and requires no interference.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The appellant no.1 deposed as PW1 that the deceased was his only son and was of 20 years of age at the time of the accident. He stated that the deceased used to work as a labourer for loading and unloading goods from goods carrier rickshaw and bullock-cart. He further deposed that the deceased used to send Rs.2,000/-p,m to them via money order. The appellants claimants had not brought any cogent or reliable evidence and had also not produced any other witness on record to prove the income of the deceased. It is no more res integra that mere bald assertions regarding the income of the deceased are of no help to the claimants in the absence of any reliable evidence being brought on record. The thumb rule is that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence pertaining to income of the deceased learned Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act.