PHILEMON LALTHAZUALA AND ORS. Vs. RAMHLUNSANGA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. C. Lalramzauva learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

(2.) The appellant's counsel submits that the Judgment & Award dated 28.03.2014 passed in MACT Case No. 26 of 2012 suffers from various infirmities and as such has filed this present appeal challenging the said Judgment & Award on 4 (four) counts. The appellant's counsel submits that the Tribunal was supposed to take gross income of the deceased which was Rs. 13,634/-, however, the Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased which was Rs. 9,198/-. The appellant's counsel further submits that the Tribunal did not take into consideration, the future prospects of the deceased in computing the income of the deceased. He submits that the future prospects @ 50% of the gross income of the deceased should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel also submits that the Tribunal did not take any account, the latest decision of the Apex Court wherein Rs. 1 lakh has been awarded for the loss of future guidance, care and love etc. The appellant's counsel also submits that the funeral expense of Rs. 25,000/- should have been awarded to the claimants and instead, the claimants have been awarded only Rs. 2000/-. The appellant's counsel submits that the impugned Judgment & Award dated 28.03.2014 has held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and as such payment of compensation was apportioned equally between the three parties, namely, the opposite party No. 1, the unidentified bike rider and the deceased himself. The appellant's counsel submits that a perusal of the evidence shows that there is no evidence showing the contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident.

(3.) The appellant's counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court passed in Manasvi Jain -Versus- Delhi Transport Corporation, 2014 2 TAC 741 wherein para 12, it has been held as follows: