1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 06.06.2008 involving two vehicles, viz. Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-6-W-7956 and Truck bearing registration No. GJ-17-T-9597, and in which Mangalbhai Shantibhai Parmar expired, the legal heirs of deceased had preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.824/2008 u/s.163-A of the M.V. Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad.
2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be allowed in part, by judgment and award dated 30.07.2009, whereby, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,82,300/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the original claimants, appellants herein, have preferred the present appeal for enhancement.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondents no.1 & 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the respective heads is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of witness Rajeshbhai Ashokbhai Sindhi (Exh.24) in its proper perspective and in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- as against Rs.3,000/-.
4. However, having gone through the impugned award, I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. So far as the income assessed by the Tribunal is concerned, it is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination, the employer categorically admitted that he does not maintain any Register regarding the monthly salary paid to his employees. In fact, the evidence of the employer was not found to be trustworthy. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income at Rs.1,200/-. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*