GIAN CHAND AND ORS. Vs. RADHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owner/driver and Insurance company have preferred two separate appeals against the award dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. The claimants have filed cross objections in the appeal filed by Shri Ram General Insurance Company.

(2.) THE brief facts are being mentioned for the purpose of appreciating the case and to examine the issues raised by the parties. An accident occurred on 24.04.2011. Milan aged 20 years was driving the motor cycle. His two friends were on the pillion. They were on Kaimbala -Chandigarh road near the Rock Garden, when the jeep came from Chandigarh side and on the wrong side of the road and struck against the motor cycle. The jeep was driven by Gian Chand. The accident resulted in injuries to Milan and proved fatal. He died on 26.04.2011. Milan's parents filed a claim petition in the Tribunal at Chandigarh pleading that their son was employed with Nerolac Company in Sector 7, Chandigarh and was drawing salary of Rs. 4,000/ -. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs. 4,000/ - per month considering him to be a labourer as no evidence was produced that he was employed with any concern and deducted 50% as personal expenses and calculated the yearly loss to be Rs. 24,000/ -. The Tribunal while selecting the multiplier considered the age of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 18 and allowed 30% addition in the income by way of future prospects. Rs. 15,000/ - was added for loss of estate and funeral expenses raising the total to be Rs. 5,76,600/ -. The liability of payment of compensation was placed upon all the respondents jointly and severally.

(3.) NO one appeared for the appellant in the appeal filed by the owner/driver of the jeep. The issue raised by him in the appeal was regarding negligence. I have gone through the judgment and I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal indicting respondent No. 1 and holding him responsible for the accident. No evidence had been led by the respondents except the bare statement made by Gian Chand. The police had also investigated the matter and a case was registered against Gian Chand. There is no reason to differ or take a different view.