MANJU MITTAL Vs. HEMANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost their sole bread earner who was a business man, and having been awarded rs. 10,45,000/- the appellants have challenged the award dated 24th November, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar ('the learned Tribunal' in short ).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in the morning of 29th August, 2003. Mr. Pradeep kumar Mittal alongwith Mr. Hemant Kumar were going to Alwar from Ramgarh on a Hero honda Motorcycle, bearing registration. No. RJ-02-8m-8716. Mr. Hemant Kumar was driving the said motorcycle rashly and negligently. The said motorcycle collided with a cow. Due to the collision, Mr. Pradeep kumar sustained serious injuries. Resultantly, mr. Pradeep Kumar expired. The claimants had filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal. The learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Being aggrieved from the said award, this appeal has been filed for enhancement.

(3.) MR. Vinay Mathur, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised four contentions before this Court: firstly, Mr. Pradeep Kumar had a business of pesticides, fertilizers and seeds, in the name and style of 'mittal Krishi seva Kendra" at Alwar. From the said business, he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In order to prove his income, the appellants had submitted income-tax returns for the years 2001 -02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. However despite the availability of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income as merely rs. 7,500/- per month. Thus, the assessment of income is disproportionately less than the income pleaded by the appellants. Secondly, considering the fact that the income of the deceased would have increased over time, his future prospects should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. But, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Thirdly, the appellant was twenty-nine years old when he met with the fatal accident. Accordingly to the Second Schedule attached to the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short), a multiplier of eighteen should have been applied by the learned Tribunal. But the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only seventeen. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred while applying an incorrect multiplier. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has directed that the interest should be paid from the date of the award, whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have directed that the interest should be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. In order to buttress his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Smt. Chameli Wati and another v. Delhi Municipal Corporation of delhi and others, AIR 1986 SC 1191 : 1986 (1)TAC 223 ).