SHUSHANK Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants in M.A.C. Petition No. 7-S/2 of 1992 against the judgment and award dated 29.4.1993 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan seeking enhancement of the award amount as also the relief of interest on the award amount from the date of the filing of the claim petition because the learned Tribunal did not grant the relief of interest in favour of the claimants.

(2.) Claimants-appellants are the minor children, son and daughter of deceased Shabnam Aggarwal, who died in a road accident. Truck No. PJV 3293 belonging to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 met with an accident with Maruti van No. HP 03-0036 on 10.8.1991 at about 1 p.m. when Maruti van was being driven by one Parvesh Aggarwal near Parwanoo barrier and was overtaking truck No. PJV 3293 which was parked there on the roadside. Respondent No. 1 Ram Karan, the driver of the truck, all of a sudden drove the truck towards the hillside of the road as a result of which it struck against Maruti van and crushed the said Maruti van, as a result of which Parvesh Aggarwal and his wife Shabnam Aggarwal sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same and died. Following four issues were framed by the Tribunal in the course of the trial:

(3.) Insofar as issue No. 2 is concerned even though one witness had appeared (Yash Pal Aggarwal, PW 2) and had deposed about the income of the deceased Shabnam Aggarwal to be in the range of Rs. 4,000-5,000 per month being realised from the tuitions that deceased Shabnam Aggarwal was allegedly giving, the Claims Tribunal has not believed and relied upon this piece of evidence and perhaps rightly so because this piece of evidence is a mere bald testimony totally uncorroborated in material particulars by any other evidence. Claims Tribunal, therefore, came to the correct conclusion that there was no evidence worth the name with respect to the income of the deceased. The deceased was 30 years old at the time of her death, she was holding the academic qualification of postgraduation but she was admittedly a housewife. Being a housewife, for the services rendered to the household the Tribunal estimated her income at Rs. 1,200 per month and this was the basis ultimately of determining the compensation amount.