KAGUBEN RAMESHBHAI VARSING BARIYA Vs. AARATBHAI SAYABABHAI BARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is given to the judgment dtd. 27/10/2016 passed by the MACT (Main), Dahod in MACP no.213 of 2007.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a skilled labourer and was maintaining the family of nine and submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the income in accordance to the evidence. Advocate Mr. Hakim further stated that the learned Tribunal was required to take assistance of minimum wages schedule to assess the income and further submitted that the prospective rise in income has not been considered properly and that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is required to be granted as per the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and funeral expenses should have been granted of Rs.15,000.00 as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta is present before this Court. He submitted that he had withdrawn the leave note. However, the system could not technically accept the withdrawal. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the income factum has to be proved by way of evidence on record since there was no documentary evidence to support the claim and stated that the actual income at the time of the death of the accident has been appropriately assessed by the Tribunal and further stated that the Tribunal has erred in considering 50% prospective rise in income, where actually, it ought to have been 40% in accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and submitted that by deducting one-fifth towards personal expenses, loss of dependency amount is just and appropriate.