GHISI AND ORS. Vs. SATYA NARAYAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 25.2.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, Ajmer, in MAC Case No. 153/2011.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that on 14.7.2011 one Ram Prasad, who happened to be standing near the Power House on Ajmer road, Kekri, was hit by a vehicle - Crane, bearing Temporary No. RJ 14SC Tem. 4721, which was being driven in a high speed in a rash and by negligent manner by Satya Narayan coming from wrong side, consequent thereto it is claimed that he received grievous and serious injuries and expired on the spot. FIR No. 279/2011 was lodged under sec. 279, 304A IPC and challan was also filed before the competent court against Satya Narayan, the driver of the vehicle - Crane. It is claimed that the deceased was a hale and hearty person, aged about 37 years and was running a halwai shop near Kekri Bus Stand, and was earning amount of Rs. 15000/ - per month, and in addition to earning as halwai he was also doing the work of labourer. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the facts noticed and evidence led, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 6,25,000/ -, which is assailed herein primarily on the view that the claim allowed is low and needs enhancement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants raised: (i) That the income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 4000/ - is virtually nothing as the deceased was aged about 37 years, quite hale and hearty and was the sole bread earner of a family with 4 minor children as well as mother and wife and was leading a good life, and after the death of deceased, the family members have suffered badly. (ii) future prospects even in a case of halwai or otherwise or a self employed person, is required to be allowed, he contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, driver etc. are also entitled for future prospects. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Rajesh and Ors. v/s. Rajbir Singh and Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC 54; Santosh Devi v/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. : (2012) 6 SCC 421; Sanjay Verma v/s. Haryana Roadways : (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC); G. Dhanasekar v/s. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. : I (2014) ACC 593 (SC); and Syed Sadiq etc. v/s. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company : (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC), and also on judgments rendered by this Court in R.S.R.T.C. v/s. Pusha Ram & Ors. : I (2014) ACC 37 (Raj.), Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v/s. Kailash Chand & Ors., 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 128; Sona & Ors. v/s. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No. 3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013, and Jagdish & Ors. v/s. Abdul Habib & Ors. (CMA No. 3690/2008), decided on 4.3.2014. (iii) He further contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection at Rs. 10,000/ - per child and to mother and wife totaling Rs. 60,000/ - is virtually nothing and is required to be enhanced. (iv) He also contended that the amount allowed on other heads also require to be enhanced suitably.