DAMOR SUMITRABEN JAYESHBHAI Vs. DURGASHANKAR KANIRAM SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of one and the same accident and hence, they are heard together and decided by this common judgment. Before the Tribunal, the original claimants had preferred separate claim petitions. The details of the same are reproduced herein below in a a tabular form:

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the original claimants assailed the impugned judgment and orders passed in these appeals mainly on the aspect of quantum of compensation. He submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the monthly income of deceased. In the absence of any documentary proof having being produced by the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income at the wage rate fixed by the State Government at the relevant point of time. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in computing dependency benefit since the deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased has not been done in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not followed the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors . reported in (2018) A.C.J. 2782 in its proper perspective while awarding compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove the aspect of income of deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income, as recorded in the impugned judgments and award. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also just and reasonable and prayed that the same may not be interfered with. Accordingly, it was prayed to dismiss the appeals.