ARVIND KUMAR Vs. MOHD RAIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gonda in Claim Petition No.68 of 2006.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.2006, the deceased Smt. Savitri Devi was returning after her medical check up. A tempo No. UP-43 T-0637, which was coming from the opposite side and whose driver was driving the vehicle very negligently and rashly, hit the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. The Tempo was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. Gonda. At the time of driving the vehicle, its driver was holding a valid driving license as well as registration certificate. The husband of the deceased has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after examining the entire evidence, took the notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- and by deducting 1/3rd on personal expenditure, took Rs.10,000/- per annum for the purpose of computation of award. The Tribunal by looking the age of the deceased as 35 years, applied the multiplier of 17. Hence, total compensation was determined as Rs.10,000x17= Rs.1,70,000/-. In addition to it, Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses; Rs.2500/- for loss of State; and Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium were also awarded. Thus, total compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal against the insurance company. Not being satisfied, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel and on perusal on record, it appears that in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that non-earning home maker women cannot be equated with beggars, prostitute and prisoners. The criteria for home maker women can be estimated with living spouse but fact remains in the instant case that no proof pertaining to income of the deceased, who was a house wife, was neither submitted before the Tribunal nor before this Court. No proof was also submitted pertaining to the income of the living spouse by the claimant - husband. The Tribunal has specifically observed that there is no iota of the documentary evidence to corroborate the claim of the income of the deceased. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.