1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.03.1993 passed by learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No 606 of 1984 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 34, 000/ .
2.0 The accident occurred on 09.02.1984 at 12.40 p.m on the National Highway No. 8 near village Jetalpur. The vehicles involved in the accident were the S.T. Bus driven by opponent No.1 and truck No. GRR 8444 driven by opponent No. 3 and insured by United India Insurance Company. Harish Dwarkadas Patel was travelling in the S.T. Bus as passenger who died in the accident. The parents of the deceased filed the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 606 of 1984 wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the quantum for dependency benefit at the rate of Rs. 30,000/ per annum contrary to the evidence on record and that learned Tribunal erred in awarding RS. 10, 000/ towards loss of expectation of life and Rs. 4000/ towards funeral expenses. .
4.0 Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant.
5.0 As regards income of the deceased is concerned, the brother of the deceased at Exh. 169 deposed that the deceased was doing the business of salt in the name of H. Kirti Salt Company and also in the name of H. Bhupendra & Company. The deceased had 20% share. Further, the deceased was paying the incometax before the accident and this figure of Rs. 8608/ of the deceased's share in H. Bhupendra & Company is also reasonable. The assessment order is produced at Exh. 146. The assessment order of the year 198485 of the return filed on 26.04.1984 after the accident shows that M/s H. Bhupendar had total income of Rs. 45, 500/ and the share of the deceased was Rs. 8608/. Therefore, totaling Rs. 14, 560/ and Rs. 8606/, the amount come to Rs. 13, 166/. The deceased was 20 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal after considering in detail has assessed the income of Rs. 8000/ per year for loss. The Tribunal has applied 15 multiplier which in my opinion is just and proper. The amount awarded under other different heads is also just and proper.
6.0 The appellant 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.
7.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*