KALABAI Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellants assail the award dated 7.11.2006 of the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 5/2004 by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,01,000/- for the death of Shravan Kumar in an accident. The deceased Shravan Kumar was the husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and son of appellant No.5. It was stated that he was engaged in vocation of pulling a hand-cart and was earning Rs.200/- per day. On 7.1.2004, while he was pulling his hand-cart loaded with iron rods when he reached the house of Dinu on Khandwa Road, the Respondent No.2, Praveen came driving a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. MP-09-H-6545 and on account of his rashness and negligence, collided with the hand-cart and the iron rods which were loaded on the hand-cart pierced in his body. As a result of the said accident, he died on 7.1.2004. The Tribunal finding that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of Respondent No.2, proceeded to determine the compensation. Though it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day and as per the Postmortem report, he was 28 years old, the Tribunal finding that there was no satisfactory evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, determined his income on the basis of notional income provided in Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, his income was assessed at Rs.15,000/- and deducting 1/3rd from the said income, the dependency was determined at Rs.10,000/- per annum. In view of the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and added the sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.14,000/- towards loss of love and affection of the appellants other than appellant No.1, his widow.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was not a case where the deceased was a non-earning member. The Tribunal also did not disbelieve that he was a person who was pulling a hand-cart and earning his livelihood therefrom. In these circumstances, the deceased could not have been described as a non-earning member and the compensation assessed on the basis of notional income.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, per contra, has submitted that firstly, even according to the claimants, the age of the deceased was 35 years and since there was no satisfactory evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day, the Tribunal did not err in making the assessment of compensation on the basis of notional income provided in Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.