1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 30.07.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1117 of 2000 whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants came to be partly allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.1,69,000/( Rs. 1, 44, 000/ for future economic loss + Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of expectation of life + Rs. 10,000/ for loss of consortium + Rs. 5000/ for funeral expenses) at the rate of 9% from th date of application till its realization.
2.0 On 03.05.2000 one Jivraj Sardarji Parmar along with other persons was going to Vatda from Kotda in jeep. He got down from the jeep near sim of Vatda and when he was going on foot, one trailer bearing registration No. GJ1UU6665 came in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed from the back side and collided with Jivraj Sardarji Parmar. As a result thereof, he sustained serious injuries on the head and he died thereafter. The widow of the deceased and legal heirs of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1200/ per month only; that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering the future prospective income; and that the multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side.
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 learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The claimant No. 1 in her deposition stated that deceased was earning Rs. 4500/ per month. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/. In the crossexamination also, there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. Further, no witness was examined to support the case of the claimants in respect of income of the deceased. The accident was occurred in the year 2000 and therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence with the regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of Rs. 1200/ per month which is just and proper. Further it is found that since the notional income is considered by the learned Tribunal, the future prospective income cannot be taken into consideration. The multiplier of 15 years applied by the learned Tribunal is just and proper in view of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121.
6.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellants could not assail the judgement and award or to persuade this Court to take a different view of the matter. The first appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*