By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31st March 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in MAC Petition No.257 of 2000 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition. 2 The short facts of the present appeal are that on the date of the incident i.e. on 21st February 2000 deceased Smt. Chanchalben @ Kanchanben was travelling in ST Bus of Dwarka-Mandvi and due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the ST Bus, the said Bus dashed with a truck, which was coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident deceased Chanchalben received grievous injuries and had died due to the same. Therefore, her heirs filed claim petition.
3 The claimants contended that the deceased was working in Kurla Bombay factory and was earning Rs.3,000 per month. However, the claimants could not produce any evidence qua the income of the deceased in support of their say that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000 per month. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000 per annum and considering the age of the deceased at 40 and by applying the second schedule the Tribunal arrived at Rs.2,70,000 out of which the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards her personal expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,80,000 on the head of dependency benefit. Over and above the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500, Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral charges respectively. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.1,89,500 was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claimants, therefore, filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation.
4 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Mr Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the aspect that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000 per month and therefore the amount of compensation should be Rs.3,93,500/-. The said contention of Shri Shah cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that no evidence could be produced by the claimants as regards the income of the deceased.
6 Therefore, considering the reasoning assigned and findings arrived at by the Tribunal, I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of any merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd