1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 28.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1008 of 1996 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 7,17,328/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 06.02.1996 while the deceased Valsingbhai was riding his bicycle, a truck bearing registration no. GTF 862 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit Shri Valsingbhai as a result of which he sustained injuries on various parts of the body and ultimately succumbed to the same. The appellants, being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr.
Kharadi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in awarding adequate amount under various heads. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased by not taking into consideration the prospective income. He submitted that the amount awarded is required to be enhanced.
5. Mr.
Thomas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Nanavati for the respondent insurance company has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that in fact the Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the income tax return of the financial year 1996-97 which was filed after the accident. He submitted that the amount awarded is already on higher side and therefore no further enhancement is called for.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the original opponent no. 1. The Tribunal also assessed the monthly income of the appellant on the basis of the income tax returns of three years two of which are before the accident and one after the accident. The income tax return filed after the accident ought not to have been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore the average of the return filed in the years 1994-95 & 1995-96 comes to Rs. 32000/- approximately. The Tribunal has infact assessed Rs. 50000/- as the annual income. No cross objections have been filed. The Tribunal has finally quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 7,17,328/-. This court therefore does not see any reason for causing interference as there is no scope for any enhancement of the compensation amount.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top