PRAKASH MEHTAR Vs. GANGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 3.2.1998 passed by II MACT, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 5/96 wherein in a motor accident, one Basantilal died, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the claim petition and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that on 15.11.1995, one Matador Tata 608 bearing Registration No. MP I4-B 8458 was going from Ratlam to Namli. This b Matador was being driven by respondent No. 5, owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with respondent No. 7, The another truck bearing No. MPE-1557 was going behind the Metador. This truck was being driven by appellant No. 1, owned by appellant No. 2 and was not insured. From the opposite direction, one truck bearing Registration No. PB 10C 9970 was coming which was driven by respondent No. 8, owned by respondent No. 9 and was insured with respondent No. 10. There was a culvert on the main road. One person namely, Basantilal was standing on the road side. Undisputedly, due to the acident, which took place by the Metador, Basantilal died on the spot. Thereafter, claim petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are L.Rs. of deceased Basantilal in which owner, driver and Insurance Company of all the vehicles were impleaded. All the owner, driver and Insurance Companies contested the case.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount awarded, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted cross-objections wherein it is alleged that the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 13,200 and loss of dependency @ Rs. 9,600 per annum, which is on lower side. It is submitted that even in the case of notional income, the income ought to have been assessed @ Rs. 15,000 per annum while deceased was working as agriculturist. It is also submitted that multiplier of 16 has been wrongly applied. Looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is on lower side.