VIMLADEVI Vs. SAURABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 985 of 2007 as both the appeals are arising against the award dated 8.12.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 185 of 2002 whereby claim petition* filed by appellants was allowed and compensation of Rs. 7,41,551 was awarded. In M.A. No. 1515 of 2007 prayer is that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced, while in M.A. No. 985 of 2007 which is filed by the respondent No. 2, insurance company, prayer is that the amount awarded is on higher side, which deserves to be reduced.

(2.) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross -appeal or cross -objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that after assessing the loss of dependency the income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 5,652 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses multiplier of 8 has been applied. It is submitted that the deceased was in the service of bank, from where deceased was compulsorily retired upon age of superannuation. It is submitted that the deceased was working as account consultant after his retirement, which took place in the month of May 2002. It is submitted that the deceased was working with M/s Lakhotiya Automobiles, Indore, M/s Friends Computers Service, Indore and M/s Mauanlal Sancheti & Associates, from where deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 10,500 per month. It is submitted that this income was not taken into consideration by the teamed Tribunal while assessing the compensation. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 be dismissed and the amount of compensation be enhanced.