ARTI Vs. LAKHVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the award dated 27.7.2011 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No. 15/2011 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) As the incident occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle (Truck bearing registration No. RJ/27-G-8841), the Claims Tribunal held the respondents liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally recording the findings in favour of the appellants and none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner or insurance company by filing the cross-appeal or the cross-objection, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation which has been assailed and the arguments in detail have been considered in succeeding paragraphs.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income Rs.3125/- per month, whereas it is evident that the deceased was skilled driver and was earning Rs.10000/- per month, therefore, his income should be assessed at least Rs.6000/- per month. It has been further submitted that the amount on other conventional heads is also inadequate which should be enhanced. It is also submitted that at the time of death of the deceased he was 31 years of age and as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], no amount under the head of future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, he prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal should be enhanced as per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).