MEENAXI PANWANDA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Manjima Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-New India Assurance Company.

(2.) This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dtd. 17/2/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (S.C. and S.T. Act) Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.324 of 2012 (Meenaxi Panwanda and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others).

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was 56 years of age. He was an Assistant Manager (H.R.) in NTPC, Haryana. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.63.032 per month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased should have been considered to be Rs.82,337.00. The deceased was survived by his widow and three daughters, the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased should not be disturbed. As far as multiplier is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. It is also submitted that the interest should be granted at the rate of 7.5%.