CHETANKUMAR BABULAL MAHETA Vs. RAJKUMAR RADHESING RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants, widow and minor as heirs deceased have challenged the judgment dtd. 27/6/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.210/2015 disputing the compensation granted.

(2.) Mr. Paresh M.Darji, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the deceased was serving as Manager in Bharat Platochem Co. at Halol, and receiving Rs.11,000.00 per month, but since the income could not be proved by examining the proprietor, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of Rs.5,000.00 only, and has granted 30% rise for future prospect, and has relied on the P.M. Note to consider the age. Mr. Darji submitted that according to driving license, the date of birth of the deceased is 11/6/1975, and, thus contended that his age, at the time of death, would be 35 years, hence, as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% prospective rise is required to be assessed.

(3.) While countering the argument, Advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas submitted that to pray for the income, as pleaded, necessary cogent evidence is required, and when the person working was under the proprietorship, the officer of the Company is required to be examined, or an accountant to prove the salary, and when no such exercise has been undertaken, Mr. Thomas submitted that the assessment of Rs.5,000.00 income is just and proper.