1.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant is permitted to delete respondent No. 6 from the cause title of the First Appeal.
2.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 16.04.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC4), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 375 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimants by awarding an amount of Rs. 3, 72, 500/ as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
2.0 On 29.05.2003 Smt. Hirbai Ramji Jepar along with the respondent No.1 original claimant and her uncle were coming from RohaKotada to Bhuj. When they were at the verge of the main road to cross the road at around 14. 00 hours and when Hirbai was just to cross road at that time, the Moped No. GJ12AA9043 came rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed, lost control over the steering and dashed and collided with Hirbai. Smt. Hirbai sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimant has therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.4,09, 500/ whereby the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal committed error in accepting the interested version of the husband of the deceased that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/ to Rs. 4000/ per month; that the claimant has not produced the income certificate of the deceased; that the claimanthusband of the deceased has filed affidavit at Exh. 37 and he has stated on oath that his wife was earning Rs. 3000/ to Rs. 4000/ per month and that during cross examination it has come out that his wife was not agriculturalist and labour.
4.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
5.0 Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.0 As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimant has not produced the income certificate. The claimanthusband of the deceased has filed his affidavit at Exh. 37 and stated on oath that his wife was working as labourer. It is also stated in the affidavit that his wife was earning Rs. 3, 000/ to Rs. 4000/ per month. This witness is cross examined by the learned advocate for the Insurance company. During crossexamination it has come out that his wife was not agriculturalist and labour. The claimant denied that his wife was not doing agriculture and labour work. However, it is admitted that he has no documentary evidence for the same. The age of the deceased was 36 years. The claimant also denied that he was doing labour work and his wife was doing household work at home. No other evidence was coming on record except the bare say of the husband. The Tribunal in absence of any reliable and cogent evidence about the income of the deceased, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/ since the accident had occurred on 29.03.2003 and considering the wages of Rs.100/ per day which in my view is just and proper.
7.0 Thus, the appellant has failed to establish their case before the Tribunal. Even before this Court 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.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*