KANTA DEVI Vs. RAMRATAN GURJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-claimants feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 7th of September, 2016 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, 'learned Tribunal), has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act'). The afflictions of the appellants are confined to quantum of compensation determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal and they have craved for enhancement of compensation on various counts on account of death of their bread winner in an accident.

(2.) After service of summons, despite service respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent. The claim petition was contested by insurer respondent No.3 denying most of the averments of claim petition in toto. It was the case of the insurer that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle but on account of own fault of the deceased who was crossing road and in order to save his life driver of the insured vehicle applied brakes but these efforts went in vein. It was further case of the insurer that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and it was being plied even without fitness and permit as such insurer is not liable to pay compensation. By narrating all these facts, the insurer pleaded for rejection of the claim petition.

(3.) Espousing appellants' cause for enhancement of compensation, it is submitted by learned counsel that deceased Dinesh Kumar was 32 years and 8 months of age at the time of his death and being Mason used to earn Rs.15,000 per month by doing work of building construction and was having income of Rs.70,000 from agriculture despite that learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income based on minimum wages as such compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel further submits that proper compensation was not awarded by the learned Tribunal under different heads such as loss of assets, funeral expenses, love and affection and interest on the claim amount was awarded only 8% per anum, which merits enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment & award.