SMT. SHANTA AND ORS. Vs. HANSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the award dated 6.1.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in Misc. Case No.240/1995. The tribunal has awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,91,000.00 with interest in favour of appellant.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved with the assessment of compensation, the appellants have come up through this appeal under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement.

(3.) While addressing the court, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award erroneously. Deceased was a skilled mason and earning Rs. 2600.00 per month but the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced. AW-1 Reva son of the deceased was earning Rs. 50.00 per day but the Tribunal has wrongly determined deceased's son's earning as of deceased victim, whereas the deceased was a skilled labour and the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced in this respect. He was 40 years of age but the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the age of the deceased being 45 years. Relying upon judgment of Sarla Devi, learned counsel has submitted that multiplier of 16 had to be applied and deduction towards personal expenses to the tune of ¼ the of the income could have been deducted. There are 6 dependents of deceased and the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium, pain and suffering and other heads has also been awarded on low side. Learned counsel has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not granting award towards future income and future prospects, so the appeal be allowed and award be enhanced. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 insurance company stated that the Tribunal has passed correct award and has not committed any error. Multiplier of 15 is appropriate because deceased was 45 years old and this age factor has been mentioned in the autopsy report. There was no other document establishing age of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality, so the appeal is liable to be dismissed.