SMT. KUNTI DEVI Vs. SILAB RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the awad dated 17/7/2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 46,000/ - along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants.

(2.) THE brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

(3.) SH . O.P. Mannie, counsel for the appellants has assailed the said award on quantum of compensation. Counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1500 per month whereas after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2500 per month. The counsel further maintained that the tribunal erred in making the deduction to the tune of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses while the deceased was giving entire income for household purposes. The counsel submitted that the tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 3 while computing compensation whereas according to the facts and circumstances of the case multiplier of 8 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 had he not met with the accident. The counsel also stated that had the deceased not met with his untimely death he would have expanded his business and would have been earning much more in the near future. 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 a 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 @ 18% per annum in place of only 12% per annum. The counsel contended that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral expenses, mental pain and sufferings and the loss of services, which were being rendered by the deceased to the appellants. Further, it has been averred that the amount awarded towards loss of estate and expectation of life is on the lower side.