(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated August 6, 1988 by which Rs. 98,200/- has been awarded as compensation to this claimant-appellants. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON February 4, 1986 at about 7. 30 P. M. , the deceased Bachhu Khan alias Allabadhay was returning to his village on his cycle after selling milk in Phalodi. The respondent no. 1 Lakha Ram came driving his truck no. RNM 3654 from the opposite direction rashly and negligently and dashed against the deceased after coming to his wrong side of the road. As a result thereof, Bachhu-khan died on spot and his cycle was damaged. His heirs filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 7,60,400/- as compensation stating that the deceased Bachhukhan who was 40 years old at the time of the accident he was earning Rs. 50-60/- per day by selling milk, Rs. 7-8 thousand per annum by selling goats and sheeps and Rs. 10,000/- by cultivating his 60 bighas of land.
(3.) THE first question for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased Bachhu Khan was contributing Rs. 450/- per month to the claimant-appellants'? It is clear from the award that this amount of Rs. 450/- has been arrived at on the basis of the income of the deceased which he was getting by selling milk. THE owner and driver of the offending truck (respondents no. 1 and 2) had admitted in their joint reply that the deceased was cultivating some agricultural land and was carrying on the trade of sale and purchase of cattle. Despite this admission, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration any income of the deceased from these sources. It has simply observed that under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/ per annum from the trade of sale and purchase of cattle and he had also good agricultural income. It is well proved from the statements of his widow Arba Khatoon P. W. 1 and Jamabandi Ex. 12 that the deceased was possessing over 60 bighas of agricultural land. Arba Khatoon has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/-by selling cattle. It is correct that no other witness of the claimants has said any thing on this point. As already observed above, the respondents no. 1 and 2 had admitted in their joint reply that the deceased was doing the trade of selling and purchasing cattle besides cultivating his agricultural land. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was not having any income from his trade of cattle and agriculture. It is correct that the claimants still possess the agricultural land. THE deceased must be devoting some time in the agriculture by which the claimants have been deprived after his death in the accident. THE cattle-trade 1 as completely stopped. It can safely be said that the deceased must be contributing to the claimants atleast Rs. 150/ per month from his income of cattle-trade and agriculture. THE learned Tribunal should have held the contribution to be Rs. 600/- and not Rs. 450 per month.