GEETA Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') challenging the judgment and award dtd. 19/8/2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Falodi, Jodhpur ('learned tribunal') in MAC. No.06/2011 whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appelllants-claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068.00 along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13/11/2010 the driver of the Tanker bearing registration no.RJ19 IG 5314 dashed into Mangilal, who was riding his bike on the correct side of the road. As a result of the accident Mangilal suffered injuries and ultimately met his demise during the course of treatment in the hospital. Subsequently, a claim petiton was filed by the appellants-claimants under Sec. 166 read with Sec. 140 of the Act before the learned tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Mangilal ('the deceased'). The respondent no.3-insurance company filed reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. On basis of pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed four issues. The appellants-claimants examined three witnesses (AW1 to AW3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.1 to Ex.12). The respondent no.3- insurance company failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence. After hearing both the parties the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,71,068.00 along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the claim petition while fastening the liability, jointly and severally, on the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side based on the minimum wages. He also submits that the deceased was an Advocate of 2.5 years standing and could not be compared to daily wagers. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding amount under the head of consortium, funeral expenses and future prospects on the lower side. He also submits that learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head of loss of estate and also erred making deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/4 on account of pesonal expenses.