ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up for orders on the stay application, however, at the joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for final hearing as the arguments of the stay application and the main appeal are same.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Singh met with an accident on 27.5.2000 which involved two motor vehicles, i.e., trucks; one bearing registration No. RJ 01-G 4526 and another one bearing registration No. PB 7-B 8695. The first truck was insured with the appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the later truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, i.e., respondent No. 6. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 5 has held that the age of deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident a multiplier of 12 was applied in consonance with the judgment of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gyanchand Jain v. Parmanand, 2003 ACJ 2152 (SC). Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the parents of the deceased was 48 and 55 years respectively, the Tribunal under the head of loss of income awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-two thousand only) (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 12).

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of Rs. 3,000 per month has been arbitrarily arrived at by the Tribunal as there was no material on record to support the same other than the oral testimony. The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of any cogent evidence the notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum ought to have been taken into consideration.