ARATI CHAKRABORTY Vs. NEPHURAI JAMATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), the appellants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to 'the Tribunal') in his judgment and award dated 28.02.1998 in connection with T.S. (MAC) No. 123 of 1997 from Rs. 82,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- due to the death of the deceased, namely, Nepal Chakraborty. The appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased while the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that on 25.12.1996 at about 08-15 a.m., while the deceased was returning home by a Rickshaw along Assam-Agartala Road, the vehicle bearing No. TR-01 -2081 proceeding in a high speed dashed against the Rickshaw in which he was travelling. In the accident, both the deceased and the Rickshaw puller sustained grievous injuries, whereupon the deceased was immediately removed to the local hospital for treatment. When he did not improve, he was referred to and taken to S.S.K.M, Hospital, Kolkata, where he died an 30.12.1996. As noted earlier, the deceased is survived by the appellants. The deceased was a retired employee of the Life Insurance Corporation and was 60 years at the time of his death. According to the appellants, the deceased was earning Rs. 3,750/- per month as pension while he earned an extra income of Rs. 2,250/- as a consultant. The appellants also asserted that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased. They accordingly claimed compensation of [Rs. 8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

(3.) The owner of the vehicle never contested the claim petition. It is, however, seen from the record that the respondent No. 2 herein contested the claim petition and filed its written objection. The stand taken by the respondent No. 2 is that no accident ever took place as alleged by the appellants and that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. However, the said respondent did not deny that the offending vehicle was insured with them on the date of accident. On the premises of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :