1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main.), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 87 of 2002 whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants came to be allowed by awarding Rs. 2, 44, 500/- to the claimants.
2.0 According to the claimant, on 06.01.2002 son of the claimants, viz., Jitendra @ Jitubhai Devjibhai Dholiya (Patel) was in employment of opponent No. 2 and was proceeding in Tractor No. GJ-12-K-2061 and Trolley No. GJ-12-U-4769 for the work of opponent No.2. The opponent No. 1- driver was driving the said Tractor-Trolley in rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed. When the said Tractor-Trolley reached near the place of accident, at about 18.00 hours, he suddenly applied brakes as a result of which due to the jerk, Jitubhai fell down from the Tractor - Trolley, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The claimants who are parents of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition whereby the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants, for enhancement of the compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants- original claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount of compensation in the present case as per Schedule II of the Motor vehicles Act; that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that when age of the deceased was 19 years and that he was working as an agricultural labour and earning not less than Rs,. 3250/- per month as per the evidence of the appellant No. 1 at Exh. 21 and income certificate at Exh. 34 and as admitted in written statement at Exh.
19. He further contended that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of Rs., 1500/- per month and that the learned Tribunal has committed erred in ignoring the documents produced at Exhs. 21, 27, 32, 33 and
34. 4.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed, 5.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The Tribunal has discussed the issue elaborately in paragraphs No. 18 of the judgement, which reads as under:
"18.
This Tribunal does not wish to rely upon the certificate, Exh. 34, that does not mean that this Tribunal wants to totally throw out even the evidence produced by the petitioners showing the occupation of the deceased. The deceased was engaged in labour work and that too in agricultural operation in the year 2001 and if this fact is considered then in order to arrive at just and reasonable compensation to be paid to the claimant Rs, 50/- per day can be reasonable taken as income of the deceased. In that case, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs, 1500/- and as provided in the Second Schedule appended to Section 163A of the Motor vehicles Act, the amount of compensation so arrived at in fatal accident, the claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, so reducing the said monthly income of 1/3rd the amount which can be made available is Rs.1000/- per month. If the said amount is multiplied by 12, then the yearly income would come to Rs. 12, 000/-. As per the settled proposition of law, the multipliers as suggested for various groups of persons in the Second Schedule appended under the said section of the said Act, cannot be taken for the purpose of arriving at just and reasonable compensation, in the case of fatal accident, so without accepting the multiplier suggested in the Second Schedule, for the age group of the persons having the age between 15 years and 20 years, this Tribunal thinks it proper to take 20 years multiplier so in that case, the petitioners will be entitled to get Rs. 2, 40, 000/- as dependency benefit."
6.0 Further it is required to be noted that the insurance company has not cross examined the claimants with regard to point of income of the deceased, In that view of the matter the income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
7.0 Thus, the appellants could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top