MAYA DEVI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dtd. 22/6/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.63/2012 titled as "Smt. Maya Devi and ORs. Vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ORs. ", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.24,18,420.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 8/2/2012 as compensation in favour of the claimants. CMA No.6193/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas CMA No.4205/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6193/2017:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.25,460.00 per month. Deceased was earning Rs.50,000.00 per month from wholesale and retail medical business. So, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.50,000.00 per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects. As per the age of the deceased i.e. about 51 years, claimants are entitled to get 10% amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of Rs.25,000.00 to claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000.00(Rs.25,000.00 for each claimant) towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000.00 for each claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000.00. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4205/2017:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that witness of Insurance Company NAW-1 Shri Naveen Upadhayay categorically stated that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was not mentioned in the Rojnamcha report. It was involved thereafter to get the compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that claimants failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the alleged vehicle.