NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRABHAKAR SITARAM PARAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Claim Petition No.91/2003 dated 2/05/2005 by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa.

(2.) THE Claim Petition was filed by the respondents nos.1 to 4 on the ground that the son of respondents nos.1 & 2, Sitaram and the brother of respondents nos.3 & 4, was operating a passenger bus bearing No.GA-01-P-5257 proceeding from Patradevi -Pernem to Panaji. It is their contention that the truck driven by the respondent no.5, owned by the respondent no.6 and insured with the appellants was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the death of the said deceased, Sitaram. In view of the said accident, the respondents nos.1 to 4 claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,60,000/- to be paid to them.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and contended that the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the respondent no.5 has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Counsel further submitted that the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no.5 is not born out from the records. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,500/- per month, which is not at all established from the records. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased, when the law is well settled that the multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the dependents, whichever is higher. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has also erroneously deducted only 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses, when the law is well settled that in case of the bachelor the amount to be deducted is 50%. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there is no material adduced by respondents nos.1 to 4 to establish that income of the deceased was Rs.3,500/- per month. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.