VENUBAI Vs. KISAN KANIRAM RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') by the Original Claimants who are the widow and daughter of deceased Bhimrao Rathod who died in the motor vehicular accident on 17/12/1996. The Appellants preferred the Claim Petition/MACP No. 114/1997 against the owner of both the vehicles involved in the accident, the Insurance Company and the Driver of one vehicle. The Insurance Company contested the Claim Petition. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short, 'Tribunal'), by Judgment and Award dtd. 23/10/2002 partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,01,000.00 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Petition till payment is made.

(2.) The Appeal is on the point of quantum. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants that, a very meager compensation is granted by the learned Tribunal. The notional income considered by the learned Tribunal was Rs.1,500.00 per month. The minimum wages of unskilled worker are at least Rs.100.00 per day. He further submitted that, considering the monthly notional income of deceased at Rs.3,000.00, an appropriate compensation be computed under the various heads as per the settled legal position. He relied on the decisions in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another { (2009) 6 SCC 121 }, National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and ors. { (2017) 16 SCC 680 } and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram and ors. {(2019) 4 Mh.L.J.1}.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, in absence of any proof towards income of deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the amount of compensation and no interference was called for. He submitted that, the cheque towards premium for Insurance of Truck was dishonoured and therefore, there was no policy of Truck at the time of accident, hence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. He admitted that, both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with the Respondent no. 4 - Insurance Company.