RAJA BEWA Vs. PRAKASH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants for just and reasonable compensation as they are aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded vide judgment dated 30 -6 -1994 passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 1040 of 1988 awarding to L 34,000/ - deducting 50% out of L 68,000/ - i.e. L 34,000/ - towards contributory negligence of the deceased, urging various facts and grounds in support of the appeal.

(2.) IN the impugned judgment various facts, legal contentions and legal evidence on record have been adverted to and the contentious issues have been answered in the judgment. Therefore, we need not advert the same except the legal grounds urged in this appeal. It is contended that after having answered the issue No. 3 in the affirmative, recording a finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased without there being legal evidence on record, is an erroneous finding and deducting 50% of the amount out of the compensation determined in the case, is erroneous in law, liable to be set aside by awarding just and reasonable compensation. Having answered issue Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the claimants, award of 757,600/ - towards loss of dependency and 710,600/ - towards loss of consortium is on the lower side and awarding L 34,000/ - in answer to issue No. 4 holding that the petitioner is entitled to L 34,000/ - with a direction to the insurer to pay penal interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within three months, is wholly unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside for the reason that though the evidence of the claimants is that the deceased was earning L 852/ - per month, the Tribunal taken L 400/ - towards his contribution to the family members. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future service prospects such as increments, promotional avenue, revision of wages to arrive at the monthly income of the deceased at L 850/ - and on that basis, it should have awarded just and reasonable compensation. The award of L 10,000/ - towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No. 1 and loss of family life is also on the lower side, being not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be enhanced.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the insurance company sought to justify the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal being the fact finding authority, on appreciation of facts, legal evidence on record, and keeping in view the law on the question, has correctly awarded compensation after deducting 50% of the compensation towards contributory negligence. The same need not be interfered with by this Court as the appellants have not made out the case for enhancement. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of this appeal. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions, the following points arise for consideration in this Court.