1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 preferred Claim Application No.124 of 2000, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh at Bhuj, under Section- 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was preferred on account of accidental death of husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, in a vehicular accident that occurred on 14.02.2000 at Sainra-Anandsar Road within the jurisdiction of Nakhatrana Police Station, Kachchh District at about 10:30 a.m. As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was riding scooter bearing registration No.GJ-12-F- 7172, when he was knocked down by a S.T. Bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-365 being driven, in a rash and negligent manner, by respondent No.7. The claimants, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.6,66,833/- as compensation. The tribunal by the order impugned, awarded an amount of Rs.2,63,500/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of claim petition till the deposit of the compensation. The appellant owner of the bus has preferred this appeal to challenge the said award.
2. Learned Advocate, Ms. Bhatt, for the appellant submitted that the appeal is preferred on two grounds; firstly, the tribunal committed an error in not following birth-certificate produced on record of the case, while determining the multiplier and, secondly, the tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-, in absence of any documentary evidence.
3. Though, notice of admission is served, none appears for the respondents.
4. Having gone through the judgment and the record and proceedings, following undisputed aspects emerge:
(1) The factum of accident and involvement of the appellant's bus in the accident is not in dispute.
(2) The death of the deceased-Harilal, as a result of the said accident, is also not in dispute.
(3) The petition before the tribunal was preferred under Section-163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Now, coming to the aspect of age of the deceased, the tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased within the age group of 35 and 40 years, while calculating the amount of compensation.
6. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the birth certificate, which was produced on record by the claimant's advocate, indicates the date of birth of the deceased as 14.04.1959 and considering the date of accident 14.02.2000, his age would be 41, and therefore, he would fall within the age group of 40 years but not exceeding 45 years.
7. Upon examining the records and proceedings, it is found that such birth certificate is produced along with list Exhibit-
20, which is a photo-copy of a certificate purported to have been issued by the Principal, Shri. Sainra(Yaksh Panchayat Prathmik Shala). However, the said document is not proved and being not exhibited, the tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in not following the said certificate.
8. The second aspect, which was canvassed for assailing the judgment, is income part. It was submitted that, in absence of any documentary evidence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.2000/- per month. It was also submitted that instead the tribunal should have considered notional income.
In this context, it may be noted that the deceased was aged about 40 to 41 years and was engaged in catering business and was maintaining a family of six persons and a scooter. Hence, the assessment of the income at Rs.2000/- by the tribunal does not call for any interference. The concept of notional income, which is sought to be pressed into service by the learned Advocate, cannot be applied to the present case, as that concept appears vide Note No.6 to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:
“6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:
Fatal and disability in non-fatal accidents:
(a) Non-earning persons
(b) Spouse -Rs.15,000 p.a.
-Rs.1/3rd of income of the earning/ surviving spouse.
In case of other injuries only “general damage” as applicable.]”
9. Therefore, the submission that notional income ought to have been considered cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, where there is a specific case of the claimant that the deceased was engaged in catering business and in light of the fact that he was maintaining a family of six persons and also maintaining a scooter, it cannot be said that income of Rs.2000/- assessed by the tribunal is in excess.
10. Neither of the two grounds on behalf of appellant, therefore, can be accepted. Appeal is devoid of merit. Therefore, the appeal must fail and stands DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (A.L.DAVE,J.)