1. By way of this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Bhavnagar in MACP No.163 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
2. Facts of the case are such that the claimants – appellants here are the parents and brother of deceased Kalpeshbhai Girjshankarbhai Joshi. On 14.12.2004, the deceased was going from Bhavnagar to Nehiya in Atul Auto rickshaw No.GJ-4X-214. The said rickshaw was driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner with full speed and due to such driving on the part of the respondent No.1, the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased sustained serious injuries and later on, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was earning Rs.3300/- by doing the work of polishing diamond and he was also doing work of delivery boy. Therefore, the claimants claimed Rs.5,20,000/- before the learned Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the deceased was 19 years old and earning Rs.3300/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs.194,500/-. He also submitted that the income taken and the multiplier applied are on lower side.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submitted that no interference is required to be called for by this Court.
I have perused the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal observed at para 48 that :
“ On perusal of certificate Mark – 19/5, Mr. Jayendrabhai Andhariya has issued this certificate on blank paper that Kalpeshbhai Girjashankar Joshi was a paper delivery boy in his Tushar News Agency and he was paying him Rs.1500/- per month. But, it is not a printed letter-pad. Moreover, dependent – Mr. G.L. Joshi has not declared on oath in his affidavit that his son was working with Jayendrabhai Andhariya who has issued certificate – Mark 19/5. Moreover, Jayendrabhai Andhariya has not stepped in the witness- box. He has not filed his affidavit before this Tribunal.”
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the deceased was not earning the amount as claimed in the petition and it is not proved by the documentary evidence. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. of the deceased. I am in complete agreement with the findings given by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.3.2010 passed in MACP No.163 of 2005 is hereby confirmed. The Appeal is dismissed.
ynvyas (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)