SHALINI WD/O VITTHAL SARDAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK. Vs. JAGDEO SUKHDEO KURHADE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O SUKODA TQ. AND DIST. AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants seek enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in MACP No.25/2001.

(2.) Shri Bharat Vora, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was taken on lower side which ultimately resulted in grant of lessor compensation. It was further urged that compensation under various conventional heads was also not granted resulting in prejudice to the case of the appellants. In support of the prayer for enhancement the learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and ors. (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 505 and judgments of this Court in Nitadevi wd/o Liladhar Sarda and ors Vs. National Insurance Company 2016(1) ALL MR 818 and First Appeal No.197 of 2007 (Gajanan Mahadeo Gulhane Vs. Bharat Trading Company and ors.) decided on 13/04/2016.

(3.) The aforesaid submissions were opposed by Shri A. H. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri S. N. Dhanagare, learned counsel for respondent No.6. It was submitted that on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal had rightly awarded fair compensation to the appellants. In absence of any evidence with regard to the income earned by the deceased, the figures applied by the Tribunal were justified not warranting any interference in the appeal. Shri A. H. Patil, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and ors. 2006(4) ALL MR (SC) 92.