LAWS(MPH)-2006-7-43

SUSHILA VADHVAR Vs. MUNNA

Decided On July 27, 2006
SUSHILA VADHVAR Appellant
V/S
MUNNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11.12.2000 passed by Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. In Claim Case No. 50 of 1995 the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000 for the death of the deceased Purshottam Lal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Purshottam Lal was working as a Training Superintendent in the Industrial Training Centre, Gwalior. On 13.2.1995 at about 5 p.m. he was going from office to his home on his scooter No. MP 07-K 1968 and one G.S. Nirmal was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near square of Gola Ka Mandir, a bus bearing No. MP 07-B 9802 was coming from the side of Mela. The bus was driven by respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. Bus came from behind without giving any horn and dashed the scooter from its back as a result he fell down and became unconscious. The crime was registered at the Police Station, Gola Ka Mandir. He was taken to Madhav Dispensary, from where he was referred to Neurosurgery Department of J.A. Group of Hospitals. On 13.2.1995 at 7 p.m. in the evening he died. Claimants filed this claim petition. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000, against which claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Claims Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly. The monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 7,042, but the Tribunal has considered the annual income as Rs. 60,000 without any basis and also deducted the amount towards income tax and professional tax and has assessed the income of Rs. 60,000 and dependency at Rs. 40,000, which is wrong. He has also submitted that proper multiplier has not been applied. In reply learned counsel for the respondents supported the award.