NAINI DEVI Vs. RUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants on account of death of Vijay Kumar, who died in a road accident on 13.11.1998, when the Jeep in which he was travelling, driven by one Rupinder Singh (respondent No.1), owned by Hardev Singh (respondent No.2) and insured by respondent No.3, struck against a tractor. (The parties are being referred to from the memo of parties before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, as the complete memo of parties is not available before this court, nor with either of the counsel for the parties).

(2.) AFTER having found the driver of Jeep No.PB -07 -4348 negligent, the Tribunal held the insurance company, with which the offending Jeep was insured, liable for payment of compensation.

(3.) ARGUING for enhancement of the above, learned counsel for the appellants firstly submits that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs.2,000/ - per month by the Tribunal, as he was stated to be a driver of a heavy vehicle in Dubai. He was also stated to be plying a Maruti Van owned by him, as a taxi, whenever he was in India. However, he admits on query, that no evidence in this regard, other than the ownership of the Maruti Van, was produced before the Tribunal. Hence, the argument that the deceased was actually driving a heavy vehicle in Dubai and was also plying a Maruti Van owned by him whenever he was in India and was earning much more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal, cannot be accepted as correct. However, keeping in view the fact that even a labourer would be earning Rs.100/ - per day even in the year 1998, in my opinion, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.3,000/ - per month and is taken as such.