SHEELA PANDEY W/O LATE SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY & 4 ORS Vs. NEW INDIA INSURNCE CO LTD BENA GHABAR BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and award dated 10th November 2010 of the aid Act passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 44 of 2010 (Smt. Sheela Pandey and Others Vs. Gulab Singh Agrawal and others) under Section 166 of the said Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Insurance Company.

(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased Surendra Kumar Pandey at the time of accident in question was doing the business of selling milk. However, his notional income has been assessed as Rs. 2,400/ - per month only. His submission is that no reasonable basis has been given by the Tribunal for taking Rs. 2,400/ - per month as notional income of the deceased from the said occupation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and cannot be logically sustained. Relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Syed Sadiq and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, 2014 2 SCC 735 it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in the said case, notional monthly income of a vegetable vendor has been taken to be Rs. 6,500/ - per month. The case of the present deceased rests upon the better footing than a vegetable vendor. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that applying the same ratio the notional income of the deceased in the present case should also be assessed at Rs. 6,500/ - per month. His further submission is that enhancement in respect of future prospects has also not been considered by the Tribunal.