(1.) The issues involved in this appeal are age of deceased, future prospects and consortium amount are not awarded.
(2.) It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the age of deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident, but the Tribunal has considered 65 years old. The claimant no. 2, who is wife of deceased was 40 years old, the claimant no. 1, son of deceased was 21 years old and the claimant no. 3 daughter of deceased was 19 years old at the time of filing claim petition. The FIR in respect of the said accident was filed by the police constable and he on guess work mentioned, the age of deceased as 65 years, and on that basis, in the postmortem report the age of deceased was mentioned as 65 years old. In claim petition, claimants had mentioned the age of deceased as 48 years old but, tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 65 years old which is not proper. Learned counsel further submits that the tribunal has not awarded future prospects as well as consortium amount.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company vehemently submitted that no documentary evidence regarding proper age of deceased was produced before the tribunal. The FIR and postmortem report shows, the age of deceased as 65 years old and, on that basis, the tribunal has considered the age of deceased as 65 year old, which is proper. Learned counsel further submits that moreover, no ground is taken in appeal about age of deceased. So, it cannot be considered. Learned counsel further submits that while awarding compensation, the tribunal has considered all the aspects and on that basis compensation is awarded, which is proper and no interference is required in it.