PINKI Vs. SWAMILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimants appeal under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 15. 7. 2001 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, gwalior in Claim Case No. 35 of 2000 and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

(2.) CLAIMANTS are the legal heirs of deceased Naresh who is said to be working as an electrician. It is stated that on 30. 3. 2000 at about 12. 45 in the afternoon Naresh was standing in front of his shop and repairing a tractor which had some electrical problems when a truck bearing No. MPG 5867 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 came and dashed against the tractor, as a result Naresh sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Claiming naresh to be aged about 26 years old and earning a salary of Rs. 6,000 per month, compensation was claimed. The learned tribunal, after assessing the facts and circumstances of the case, assessed the age of deceased at 23 years on the basis of Exh. P5, post-mortem report and annual income at Rs. 18,000 after deducting 1/3rd for self expenses, dependency has been assessed at rs. 12,000 per annum and compensation of Rs. 2,04,000 has been awarded. To this, further a sum of Rs. 26,000 on all other heads is added and total compensation of rs. 2,30,000 is awarded. It is the case of the petitioner that compensation awarded is very much on the lower side. Deceased naresh was working as electrician and, therefore, would be earning at least Rs. 200 per day. Inviting our attention to the judgments rendered in the case of Nirmala v. Fazal Khan, 2007 (1) MPWN 23; Pachki bai v. Mansha Ram, 2007 ACJ 1513 (MP)and Mohd. Latifv. Rashid Khan, 2007 ACJ 1380 (MP ). Mr. B. D. Verma tried to submit that considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid case assessment of salary should be made to Rs. 6,000 per month and after considering the age of deceased to be 26 years as per statement of wife the compensation should be calculated.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid the insurance company submitted that as proper compensation is awarded, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.