MAIMUNA Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted vide award dated 13.5.2015 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat.

(2.) While praying for enhancement, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was 15 years of old. The income of the deceased was assessed only Rs. 15,000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 has been applied, whereas, the income of the deceased should have been assessed at least Rs. 50,000/- per annum. Similarly, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 15. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Beet Nath Vs. Gulab Singh, FAO No. 159 of 2015 decided on 10.7.2017 as well as Sunita Devi and another vs. Vijay Pal and others, 2018(2) Law Herald 1659, vide which, the learned Single Judge of this Court took into account the notional income as Rs. 50,000/- per annum.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company while vehemently opposing the enhancement by taking Rs. 50,000/- per annum as the income submitted that the same would be against the well settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others. 2013(5) Law Herald (SC) 4346 wherein the notional income of the child was taken as Rs. 30,000/-. Reference is also made to the second schedule provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act qua the fatal accident resulting in death cases to be taken as maximum Rs. 5 lacs who is not earning.