RISHI RAJ Vs. RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'M.V. Act') has been preferred by claimant-Rishi Raj against Award dtd. 22/4/2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Claim Petition No.73 of 2006, titled as Rishi Raj vs. Ram Krishan and others, whereby claimant has been held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.2,13,000.00 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing petition till realization of whole amount from respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner) jointly and severally by considering claimant a gratuitous passenger instead of Conductor-cum-Manager of the offending vehicle (Truck), but rejecting the claim of the claimant for compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00, considering his income @ Rs.3000.00 per month instead of claimed monthly income of Rs.8000.00 per month.

(2.) Appeal has been preferred on two counts that compensation awarded by the MACT is on extremely lower side and assuming his income as Rs.3000.00 per month, instead of Rs.8000.00, is contrary to the material placed on rec rd, and further that keeping in view the age of the claiman , de ails of expenses placed on record and disability suffe ed by he claimant, as well as applying multiplier of 17 instead of 16, amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. Further that, claimant has been wrongly considered as gratuitous passenger instead of Conductor-cum-Manager despite no rebuttal on this count by the respondents, rather there is admission of owner and driver that claimant was engaged as Conductor-cum-Manager of the Truck.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.